Opinion ID: 4686682
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: FMLA and KCRA Retaliation Claims

Text: Koch’s corresponding retaliation claims also fail. To survive summary judgment on retaliation under the FMLA and KCRA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) she engaged in a protected activity, (2) her employer knew of that activity, (3) the employer thereafter took an adverse employment action, and (4) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action. See Seegar v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., 681 F.3d 274, 283 (6th Cir. 2012) (FMLA); Charalambakis v. Asbury Univ., 488 S.W.3d 568, 583 (Ky. 2016) (KCRA). As discussed above, Koch’s FMLA retaliation claim fails because when Thames terminated Koch, it had neither notice nor any reason to believe that Koch was exercising her FMLA rights. See Land v. S. States Coop., Inc., 740 F. App’x 845, 850 (6th Cir. 2018) (affirming -10- No. 20-5367, Koch v. Thames Healthcare Group, LLC summary judgment for the defendant because the defendant had already started termination proceeding before receiving the plaintiff’s FMLA letter). Koch’s KCRA retaliation claim fails because she merely rehashes her FMLA argument, which the KCRA does not protect. The KCRA requires that the claimed discrimination be “because the person is a qualified individual with a disability,” not because the person is “incapacitated” as defined by the FMLA. Compare K.R.S. § 344.040(1)(a), with 29 C.F.R. § 825.115(a); see Stanley v. Haier US Appliance Sols., Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00640, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24448, at  (W.D. Ky. Feb. 11, 2020) (“Taking FMLA leave is not a protected activity for the purposes of the KCRA anti-retaliation provision.”).