Chavous v. City of Saint Petersburg
| Decision Date | 20 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 8:20-cv-1614-KKM-JSS |
| Citation | 576 F.Supp.3d 1040 |
| Parties | Manuel CHAVOUS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAINT PETERSBURG, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Rainier Regueiro, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.
Joseph P. Patner, City Attorney's Office, Danielle Sheree Weaver-Rogers, City of St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, FL, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Manuel Chavous filed a Complaint alleging that the City of Saint Petersburg suspended and terminated him in violation of federal and Florida employment law. The City moves for summary judgment, arguing that Chavous has failed to establish the essential elements of his claims and cannot rebut the City's neutral reason for his termination. The Court agrees. The City is thus entitled to summary judgment.
The City of Saint Petersburg hired Manuel Chavous as an equipment operator in the Parks and Recreation Department on April 17, 2017. (Doc. 20 at 1.) The City informed Chavous of the collective bargaining agreement and the rules and regulations for City employees. (Doc. 17-4 at 1–2, 157.) The agreement requires an employee seeking medical leave to "notify his immediate supervisor ... before the scheduled reporting time." (Doc. 17-3 at 55.) Unless the Parks Department waives the requirement, the employee is required to call in "for each day the employee is unable to work." (Id. at 56.) The same procedure applies to requests for annual leave. (Id. at 54 ().) The City's rules and regulations contain these same requirements. (Doc. 17-4 at 80, 82.) The City's rules also explain that "[f]ailure to make a proper leave request or call-off or failure to properly report a late arrival" is attendance-related misconduct. (Id. at 133.)
On November 9, 2017, Chavous injured his hand while unloading grass from a trailer. (Doc. 20 at 1; Doc. 1 ¶ 6.) On May 9, 2018, Chavous was injured on the job again, this time in a car accident. (Doc. 20 at 1; Doc. 1 ¶ 13.) Chavous received workers’ compensation benefits for both injuries under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act (FWCA). (Doc. 20 at 1–2.) He is still receiving treatment. (Id. )
Following the first injury, Chavous requested leave paperwork under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). (Doc. 20 at 1–2; Doc. 17 at 5.) He received the notice of eligibility forms on April 2, 2018. (Doc. 17 at 6; Doc. 17-6 at 8.) The City's rules require employees to submit completed requests for FMLA leave within 15 days of receiving the notice of eligibility. (Doc. 17-4 at 89.) As permitted under the FMLA, see 29 U.S.C. § 2613, the City requires the employee to include a certification from a doctor establishing that the employee had a qualifying medical condition as part of the FMLA leave request paperwork. Chavous provided the City an incomplete leave request on July 12, 2018. He dropped those papers off at his doctor's office that same day. (Doc. 20 at 5; Doc. 19 at 5.) His doctor, Dr. Wojnowich, lost the forms and returned the completed certification to the City on July 27, 2018. (Doc. 19 at 5; Doc. 20 at 7.)
The City placed Chavous on light duty following his first injury. (Doc. 20 at 2.) While on light duty, Chavous reported to work at 7:00 a.m. (Doc. 17-3 at 122.) On May 3, 2018, the City released Chavous from light duty and directed him to report to work at 6:00 a.m. the following day. (Doc. 17-2 at 2.) Chavous did not arrive until 6:56 a.m. (Id. ) The City's collecting bargaining agreement explains that a tardy employee may be deemed absent for the entire day if the employee does not provide notice of tardiness before the shift begins. (Doc. 17-3 at 110.)
On June 11, 2018, the City issued Chavous an Employee Notice for failing to arrive on time and suspended him for two days. (Doc. 20 at 2–3.) Chavous filed a grievance, alleging that he received conflicting instructions from supervisors on when he was to report. (Id. at 4.) After review and a hearing, the City denied the grievance because it determined that Chavous had received ample instructions on his return to full duty. (Id. at 3–4.) Chavous appealed the decision, but the City dismissed his appeal as untimely. (Id. at 4.)
On June 27, 2018, Chavous did not report for work and did not report his absence in advance, as the City's rules require. (Doc. 17-2 at 2; Doc. 20 at 4; Doc. 23-1 at 15–16.) The City issued Chavous a second Employee Notice on July 12, 2018, this time suspending him for five days. (Doc. 20 at 4–5.) The Notice explained that this failure was Chavous's second serious violation within an 18-month period and that any additional violations could result in termination. (Doc. 17-2 at 19.) That same day, Chavous gave the City paperwork requesting FMLA leave, but without the required doctor's certification. (Doc. 20 at 5.) On July 23, 2018, Chavous filed an employee grievance, alleging that he should have been excused for his June 27, 2018 absence because his doctor told him that he should not work until July 2, 2018. (Id. at 4–5.) Chavous filed a second grievance on July 23, 2018. (Id. at 5.)
While those grievances were pending, Chavous failed to report to work on June 29, July 6, and July 13, 2018. (Doc. 17-2 at 3.) After failing to appear or report his absence on these three consecutive Fridays, the City issued Chavous a third Employee Notice that terminated his employment. (Id. at 3, 22.) The Notice described Chavous's absences as "egregious" violations of the City's rules and regulations and that they "demonstrated a clear pattern of abuse of leave privileges, especially around weekends." (Id. at 21.)
On July 27, 2018, the day after Chavous's termination, Dr. Wojnowich—Chavous's doctor—faxed completed paperwork to the City requesting FMLA leave. (Doc. 17-5 at 2.) Dr. Wojnowich estimated that Chavous's condition could last from one-to-four weeks from July 12, 2018, but he clarified that the estimated days of incapacity were July 12 through July 26, 2018. (Id. at 6–7.)
The City held a grievance hearing on August 7, 2018, to address the second and third Employee Notices. (Doc. 20 at 6.) Although the FMLA paperwork was filed late, the City retroactively approved Chavous's request for FMLA leave for July 12 through July 26, 2018. (Doc. 17-5 at 4.) The City also reinstated Chavous, rescinding his termination. (Doc. 17-2 at 3.) Further, relying on the doctor's report that Chavous was incapacitated from July 12 through July 26, the City reduced the prior five-day suspension to two days and granted Chavous backpay. (Id. at 3; Doc. 20 at 6.) The City reasoned a two-day suspension was still warranted because the City did not receive the FMLA paperwork until after Chavous took his leave and because Chavous did not follow City procedure for requesting and taking leave. (Doc. 20 at 6–7.) Chavous admits that the paperwork was submitted late, but claims the delay is solely attributable to his doctor. (Id. at 7.)
The City decided that Chavous should return to work on August 8, 2018, at 7:00 a.m., the day following the hearing. (Doc. 20 at 7; Doc. 17-3 at 128.) But Chavous did not return on August 8. Nor did he return the next day. (Doc. 17-2 at 23.) By August 24, Chavous still had not returned to work or explained his absence, (Doc. 23-1 at 15–17), so the City sent Chavous a letter explaining that it would hold a disciplinary hearing on August 27, 2018. (Id. ; Doc. 20 at 7–9.) Chavous did not attend the hearing, and the City terminated him. (Doc. 20 at 9.) In addition to the previous instances, the City asserted that Chavous had demonstrated a pattern of taking "unscheduled leave," claiming Chavous did not come to work on January 5 or 8, March 15 or 16, the entire week of March 19, and the entire week of April 2. (Doc. 17-2 at 21.)
Chavous admits that the City in fact rescinded his termination, but he denies receiving notice of that decision. (Doc. 20 at 7.) According to Chavous, no one told him at the first grievance hearing that he had been reinstated or that he was supposed to report to work the next day. (Id. ) He further claims that he never received the City's letters that he had been reinstated and was required to return to work. (Id. ) He claims to have received notice of his reinstatement only "later on," because the City mailed the documents to his grandmother's address, where he does not reside. (Doc. 20 at 7.) That said, Chavous admits that he received a check for backpay, though he did not know why. (Id. ) He also admits that he received "a whole stack of documents" and that "it's possible that a letter [asking him to attend the termination hearing] is in there." (Doc. 17-1 at 38.)
Following his termination, Chavous filed this action, alleging that the City wrongfully terminated him in violation of the FMLA and FWCA. (Doc. 1.) On October 7, 2021, the City moved for summary judgment on all claims. (Doc. 17.)
Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
A moving party is entitled to summary judgment when the nonmoving party "fail[s] to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The movant always bears the initial burden of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those parts of the record that demonstrate an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc. , 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991).
When that burden is met, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material...
To continue reading
Request your trial