Opinion ID: 774323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 13 The FMLA provides eligible employees with certain substantive rights, and it is unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided. 29 U.S.C. sec. 2615(a)(1). Plaintiff alleges that Beverly denied her right to be reinstated. The FMLA provides, with one minor exception not applicable here, that any eligible employee who takes leave . . . shall be entitled, on return from such leave--(A) to be restored by the employer to the position of employment held by the employee when the leave commenced; or (B) to be restored to an equivalent position. 29 U.S.C. sec. 2614(a)(1). Eligible employees are thus entitled to reinstatement. See id.; Haschmann v. Time Warner Entm't Co., 151 F.3d 591, 604 (7th Cir. 1998). The substantive right provided in sec. 2614(a)(1), however, shall [not] be construed to entitle any restored employee to . . . any right, benefit, or position of employment other than any right, benefit or position to which the employee would have been entitled had the employee not taken the leave. sec. 2614(a) (3)(B); see also Rice v. Sunrise Express, Inc., 209 F.3d 1008, 1017-18 (7th Cir. 2000), reh'g en banc denied, 217 F.3d 492, cert. denied, 531 U.S 1012, 121 S. Ct. 567, 148 L. Ed. 2d 486 (2000). The right to reinstatement is therefore not absolute. 14 When an employee alleges that the employer interfered with her substantive rights under the FMLA, we require her to establish[ ], by a preponderance of the evidence, that [s]he is entitled to the benefit [s]he claims. Diaz v. Fort Wayne Foundry Corp., 131 F.3d 711, 713 (7th Cir. 1997). The employer may then present evidence to show that the employee would not have been entitled to her position even if she had not taken leave. See Rice, 209 F.3d at 1018 (quoting O'Connor v. PCA Family Health Plan, Inc., 200 F.3d 1349, 1354 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding that the employer has an opportunity to demonstrate that it would have discharged the employee even if she had not been on FMLA leave)). The employee must then overcome the employer's assertion, as she carries the burden of demonstrating her right to the entitlement. See id.; but see id. at 1019 (Evans, J. dissenting); Rice v. Sunrise Express, Inc., 217 F.3d 492, 493 (7th Cir. 2000) (Diane P. Wood, J. dissenting from denial of reh'g en banc); 29 C.F.R. sec. 825.216(a)(1) (explaining that [a]n employer must be able to show that an employee would not otherwise have been employed at the time reinstatement is requested in order to deny restoration to employment). Thus, Kohls must show that she was entitled to be reinstated as the Manor's Activities Director, which means she must prove that Beverly would not have discharged her had she not taken FMLA leave. See Rice, 209 F.3d at 1018. 15 As indicated by the statute, an employer can refuse to restore an employee to their former position when restoration would confer a right, benefit, or position of employment that the employee would not have been entitled to if the employee had never left the workplace. 29 U.S.C. sec. 2614(a)(3)(B). For example, if an employee was hired only for a discrete project, and that project was completed while the employee was on leave, then the employer has no obligation to restore the employee. See 29 C.F.R. sec. 825.216(b). The regulations also state that an employee who is laid off during the course of her leave has no right to reinstatement. See id. at (a)(1). With no absolute right to reinstatement, whether an employer violates the FMLA turns on why the employee was not reinstated. Clearly, an employee may not be fired because she took leave--that would be in direct violation of the statute. See 29 U.S.C. sec. 2615(a)(2). However, an employee may be fired for poor performance when she would have been fired for such performance even absent her leave. See Clay v. City of Chi. Dep't. of Health, 143 F.3d 1092, 1094 (7th Cir. 1998). 16 Kohls asserts that she would not have been fired had she not taken leave and was thus entitled to reinstatement. Beverly counters by claiming that Kohls would have been terminated regardless of whether or not she took maternity leave, due to the problems with the Resident Council checkbook and the activities program. We find that Beverly has presented sufficient evidence to support its assertion that Kohls was terminated for the stated reasons. Kohls admitted that at least one check was not accounted for, that she did not consistently record check numbers or amounts, that she threw out the bank statements, and that she did not balance the checkbook. Kohls has not suggested that Flick was lying when she stated that the checkbook was off by $70.86 nor has Kohls presented any explanation for the difference. With respect to the performance issues, it is clear from the record that numerous parties commented on the deficiencies in the activities department under Kohls. While it is not as clear how much of this had been communicated directly to Flick, it is undisputed that she was aware of the problems, and had even discussed them with Kohls (following the state survey). An employer undoubtedly has the discretion to fire an at-will employee for mishandling and mismanaging funds or for poor performance, or both. See Kariotis v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 131 F.3d 672, 678-79 (7th Cir. 1997) ([N]o federal rule requires just cause for discharges.) (quotation omitted). It is possible, of course, that Flick would have disciplined Kohls less severely--by choosing something other than immediate termination--if there had not been another employee ready to take Kohls' place. Our role is not, however, to tell employers how to discipline employees; rather, it is to ensure that the process is not discriminatory. See id. 17 Yet there is an additional twist: Beverly did not decide to fire Kohls until some time after she took leave. 3 Cf. Santos v. Knitgoods Workers' Union, Local 155, 252 F.3d 175, 178-79 (2d Cir. 2001) (discussing case in which employee had no right to reinstatement because the employer had already decided to terminate the employee prior to the time the employee took leave). We can imagine circumstances in which the timing of this decision could lead a fact finder to infer that the employee would not have been fired absent her taking of leave (if, for example, a supervisor who had been aware of problems with an employee did not decide to fire the employee until she took leave, and the supervisor based the firing on the incidents of which the employer had already been aware). Cf. Clay, 143 F.3d at 1094 (recognizing that the employee was discharged solely because of her work deficiencies known to defendants prior to her leave yet still finding that plaintiff was discharged for poor performance rather than for taking a medical leave). Here, however, it is clear that the employer did not discover many of the deficiencies in Kohls' work--particularly with respect to the checkbook--until after Kohls took leave. The fact that the leave permitted the employer to discover the problems can not logically be a bar to the employer's ability to fire the deficient employee. 18 Ultimately, Kohls asserts that she was fired not due to problems with the checkbook or her performance, but rather because Flick liked plaintiff's replacement better. She thus asserts that Beverly's reasons for firing her are merely pretext for discrimination. While we do review whether the employer's description of its reasons is honest, Gustovich v. AT&T Communications, Inc., 972 F.2d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 1992), the employee's burden is to prove a violation of the FMLA. Thus, pretext may have evidentiary value, but showing pretext does not necessarily satisfy the employee's burden. See Diaz, 131 F.3d at 713 (comparing the use of pretext in the FMLA context with the use of pretext in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting scheme); cf. Haschmann, 151 F.3d at 604- 05 (finding sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the plaintiff- employee was not terminated for poor performance, as the employer contended, but rather was terminated in violation of the FMLA). 19 Kohls points to Flick's openly acknowledged wish that Price could be the Manor's permanent Activities Director as evidence that Kohls was not fired for the checkbook or performance related problems. Yet Flick's preference for Price does not itself demonstrate that Kohls would not have been terminated if she had not taken leave. Beverly would have been entitled to fire Kohls for mismanagement and mishandling of funds regardless of whether she had taken leave or not. Further, the facts support Beverly's contention that Flick, numerous residents, residents' family members, and other employees all preferred Price due to her successful activities programs. Nothing in the record indicates that Flick preferred Price for any reason related to Kohls' taking of leave. 20 Kohls asserts that if she had really been fired for the stated reasons, Flick would have followed Beverly's policies pertaining to termination. Kohls is correct that Flick did not follow the discipline and counseling procedures set forth in its written discipline policy (requiring suspension without pay, an investigation with witnesses, and so forth). However, as noted above, the procedures outlined in Beverly's policy were only a guide and did not have to be followed in all instances. It was in the discretion of the executive director, Flick, to terminate Kohls on the spot rather than initiate the formal process. As we have stated many times, our role is not to make suggestions to managers on how to deal with employees more fairly or effectively--we leave that to a company's personnel department. See Dale v. Chi. Tribune Co., 797 F.2d 458, 464 (7th Cir. 1986) (This Court does not sit as a super-personnel department that reexamines an entity's business decisions.). 21 Beverly has asserted that Kohls' deficiencies were the reason for her termination and that she would have been terminated regardless of her leave, and Kohls has not presented sufficient evidence for a fact finder to conclude otherwise. While we recognize the difficulty of an employee's burden in this respect, our court has ruled on the appropriateness of this burden, see Rice, 209 F.3d at 1018, and we decline plaintiff's request to reconsider that decision.