Opinion ID: 2977760
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: FMLA Retaliation Theory

Text: FMLA retaliation theory claims are analyzed under the burden-shifting framework established by McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See Edgar v. JAC Prods., 443 F.3d 501, 508 (6th Cir. 2006). To establish an initial prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show the following by a preponderance of the evidence: “(1) he engaged in an activity protected by the [FMLA]; (2) that this exercise of his protected rights was known to the defendant; (3) that defendant thereafter took an employment action adverse to the plaintiff; and (4) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Arban, 345 F.3d at 404. The significant difference between an interference and a retaliation claim is the causal connection element, which encompasses an employer’s intent; in contrast to the interference theory, under the retaliation theory, “the employer’s motive is an integral part of the analysis.” Edgar, 443 F.3d at 508. If the plaintiff can prove a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employer’s action. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. If the defendant carries this burden, the plaintiff must show that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant are pretextual. Id. at 804. Because Morris’s leave was not on account of a serious health condition, he cannot establish the first element, that he engaged in an activity protected by the FMLA. For the same reasons that Morris’s FMLA interference claim fails, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Family Dollar on Morris’s FMLA retaliation claim. 13