Court Opinion

ID: 9374741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 20:00:31.817113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.668317
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                File Name: 23a0102n.06

                                         Case No. 22-5638

                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
                                                                                    FILED
                                                                              Feb 23, 2023
                                                       )
RICHARD DEVORE,                                                           DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
                                                       )
       Plaintiff-Appellant,                            )
                                                       )         ON APPEAL FROM THE
v.                                                     )         UNITED STATES DISTRICT
                                                       )         COURT FOR THE WESTERN
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO.,                             )         DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
       Defendant-Appellee.                             )
                                                       )                              OPINION

Before: SUHRHEINRICH, COLE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

       COLE, Circuit Judge. Richard DeVore, a longtime employee at United Parcel Service Co.

(UPS), was terminated after violating a UPS policy, ostensibly by mistake. DeVore sued UPS,

claiming that the real reason for his termination was retaliatory animus based on a request for leave

under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601–54. UPS moved for

summary judgment on the basis that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for DeVore’s

termination—namely, his error at work. The district court granted the motion, and DeVore

appealed. We affirm.

                                       I. BACKGROUND

       In May 2018, DeVore was working as a flight crew scheduler at UPS, where he had been

employed for nearly thirty years. As of 2016, based on a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

with the UPS pilots, UPS had a policy that flight schedulers could release pilots early from their
Case No. 22-5638, DeVore v. UPS

shift if appropriate based on workflow, but if the scheduler did so, he was required to document it

so that the pilot’s pay would be reduced accordingly.

        In 2014, DeVore began suffering from medical problems related to his feet. By 2018, he

had twice taken FMLA leave to receive and recover from foot surgeries. In or around March 2018,

he reported to his supervisor, Jeff Johnston, that he would need to take time off from work again

for another surgery, although he did not say when the surgery would be. DeVore and other

employees testified about numerous issues with Johnston as a supervisor, describing him as

unprofessional and, in effect, a bully who ribbed DeVore and other employees for their

appearances, although no testimony linked these jibes to FMLA leave or other FMLA-protected

activity.

        During one shift in May 2018, DeVore received a call from a UPS pilot asking to be

released early. DeVore agreed to do so. DeVore did not enter the code to reduce the pilot’s pay;

according to DeVore, he believed he had the discretion not to enter the code and instead allow the

pilot to collect his full pay.

        DeVore’s higher-ups at UPS soon learned of his mistake while looking through the flight

crew schedulers’ call logs for information about an unrelated incident. They explained that

DeVore violated UPS’s “integrity policy” by failing to enter the pay-deduction code as required.

UPS then terminated DeVore for falsifying documents and violating the integrity policy. In email

correspondence between UPS supervisors, one supervisor stated that DeVore had “been told many

of times [sic] not to do these types of things.” (Emails, R. 54-15.) Additionally, another UPS

employee previously reported DeVore to his immediate supervisor, Johnston, for adjusting another

pilot’s schedule without following protocols.

                                                -2-
Case No. 22-5638, DeVore v. UPS

       DeVore and other UPS employees testified that they were unaware of another employee

being fired for this specific error. One employee stated that he had allowed pilots to keep their

full day of pay despite being released early from shifts on numerous occasions and was never

disciplined for it, although he also claimed that he was “terminated . . . under similar

circumstances” relating to union activity. (Lynott Decl., R. 62-8, PageID 479–80.)

       DeVore sued UPS in federal court for FMLA retaliation, arguing that his May 2018

termination was caused not by his coding error but by his request for FMLA leave two months

earlier. UPS moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion. DeVore timely

appealed.

                                        II. ANALYSIS

       We review a grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Walsh v. KDE Equine,

LLC, 56 F.4th 409, 416 (6th Cir. 2022). Summary judgment is appropriate only where—taking

all evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant—there is no genuine dispute of

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Sec’y of Labor v.

Timberline South, LLC, 925 F.3d 838, 843 (6th Cir. 2019); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

       DeVore contends that his termination from UPS constituted unlawful retaliation under the

FMLA, which prohibits employers from firing an employee who requests leave under the act. See

29 U.S.C. § 2615(a); Milman v. Fieger & Fieger, P.C., 58 F.4th 860, 866–67 (6th Cir. 2023)

(holding that FMLA retaliation claims may arise under § 2615(a)(1) or § 2615(a)(2)).

       With respect to FMLA retaliation claims on appeal from summary judgment, “we must

determine whether, within the steps of the McDonnell Douglas framework, there are genuine

disputes of material fact.” Marshall v. Rawlings Co., LLC, 854 F.3d 368, 381 (6th Cir. 2017). At

the first step of McDonell Douglas’s burden-shifting framework, DeVore must establish his prima

                                              -3-
Case No. 22-5638, DeVore v. UPS

facie case by showing that (1) he engaged in FLMA-protected activity; (2) UPS knew of his FMLA

activity; (3) after learning of the FMLA activity, UPS took an adverse action against him; and

(4) there was a causal link between the FMLA activity and the adverse action. Donald v. Sybra,

Inc., 667 F.3d 757, 761 (6th Cir. 2012). Once DeVore makes his prima facie case, UPS must

present a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action—here, terminating his

employment. Edgar v. JAC Prods., Inc., 443 F.3d 501, 508 (6th Cir. 2006). Once UPS does so,

DeVore’s claim can survive only if he creates a genuine dispute of fact that UPS’s proffered reason

is pretextual. Bryson v. Regis Corp., 498 F.3d 561, 570 (6th Cir. 2007).

        Here, even assuming DeVore has provided sufficient evidence to support his prima facie

case, he fails to create a genuine dispute of material fact on the final McDonell Douglas step

requiring a showing that UPS’s rationale for terminating him was pretextual. A plaintiff can

demonstrate pretext by putting forth evidence that “the employer’s proffered reasons (1) have no

basis in fact; (2) did not actually motivate the action; or (3) were insufficient to warrant the action.”

Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., LLC, 681 F.3d 274, 285 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Dews v. A.B.

Dick Co., 231 F.3d 1016, 1021 (6th Cir. 2000)).

        Regarding the first option, it is undisputed that DeVore’s decision not to apply the pay-

reduction code to reflect the pilot’s time off work in May 2018 occurred and contradicted UPS

policy. Turning to the second and third options, DeVore maintains that his evidence shows that

UPS’s decision to terminate him was motivated by his previous notice of FMLA leave and the

policy violation was so minor that it was insufficient to warrant termination. DeVore emphasizes

that his request for leave related to an upcoming but unscheduled surgery occurred two months

before UPS terminated him. Even assuming that DeVore’s March 2018 statement that he would

need to go “out on disability”—untethered to any particular timeframe—gave notice of FMLA

                                                  -4-
Case No. 22-5638, DeVore v. UPS

activity, “the law in this circuit is clear that temporal proximity cannot be the sole basis for finding

pretext.” Donald, 667 F.3d at 763 (citing Skrjanc v. Great Lakes Power Serv. Co., 272 F.3d 309,

317 (6th Cir. 2001)). Temporal proximity can support a finding of pretext when bundled with

other corroborating evidence, see Seeger, 681 F.3d at 285, but DeVore lacks such supporting

evidence.

        DeVore points to testimony from other employees stating that they were unaware of

someone else being terminated for the same error DeVore committed; that other, unnamed

employees committed worse errors than DeVore without being fired; that Johnston, DeVore’s

supervisor, was a bully who insulted employees based on their appearances; and that UPS allegedly

fired an employee several years before for engaging in union activity. But none of this testimony

links DeVore’s termination to his request for leave.

        To start, to the extent that the UPS employees’ testimonies intimate that unnamed

individuals committed the same or worse errors without being fired, those statements are too

speculative and unsupported by specific facts to defeat summary judgment. See Alexander v.

CareSource, 576 F.3d 551, 560 (6th Cir. 2009). Moreover, that UPS did not usually fire people

for the kind of error that DeVore committed does not provide a basis for finding pretext,

particularly where the record reflects that UPS supervisors believed that DeVore had a history of

similar errors and had already been warned that further disciplinary measures would ensue. See

Donald, 667 F.3d at 763 (“Whether [an employer] followed its own protocol . . . provides neither

us, nor a rational juror, with a basis to believe that [the employer’s] decision was improper.”)

There is no indication that the other employees described in DeVore’s submissions had a similar

background or, indeed, were ever caught committing the error that DeVore made, making such

comparisons inapt.

                                                 -5-
Case No. 22-5638, DeVore v. UPS

       Similarly, although Johnston’s comments to DeVore and other employees were

inappropriate—even hurtful—nothing in the record links these insults to DeVore’s request for

FMLA leave, particularly where Johnston also lambasted other employees who did not request

FMLA leave. The same is true of UPS’s alleged termination of a different employee for union-

related conduct; it simply does not support DeVore’s argument that his termination was rooted in

his request for FLMA leave, an entirely different sort of statutorily protected conduct. See Norton

v. LTCH, 620 F. App’x 408, 412 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753,

767 (6th Cir. 2015)) (“To show pretext, [a plaintiff] must show both that [an employer’s] proffered

reason was not the real reason it fired her and that the real reason was retaliation for protected

activity under the FMLA.”).

       Unfortunately for DeVore, there is no evidence in the record that would allow a reasonable

jury to conclude that UPS terminated him because of a request for FMLA leave.

                                       III. CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in

favor of UPS.

                                               -6-