Holladay v. Rockwell Collins, Inc.

Decision Date24 January 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 3:17-CV-00078-SMR-SBJ
Parties Jennifer HOLLADAY, Plaintiff, v. ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa

Nathan T. Willems, Anthony Joseph Olson, Rush & Nicholson, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff.

Kelly R. Baier, Bradley & Riley, Cedar Rapids, IA, Melissa Ammann Carrington, Bradley & Riley PC, Iowa City, IA, for Defendant.

ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
STEPHANIE M. ROSE, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, [ECF Nos. 33; 35]. The parties requested a hearing on their motions, but the Court finds that the issues can be resolved without it. See LR 7(c). The parties' motions have been fully submitted and are ready for a decision. For the reasons set out below, the motions are DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND1

Defendant Rockwell Collins, Inc. (the "Company") is a publicly owned company that produces communication and aviation electronic solutions for both commercial and government applications. [ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 1].2 Defendant hired Plaintiff Jennifer Holladay as an assembly operator at its Coralville, Iowa, plant on May 29, 2007, where she was employed until her termination on July 21, 2016. Id. ¶ 2; [ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 52]. While employed with the Company, Plaintiff was a member of the collective bargaining unit at the Coralville plant represented by Local Union No. 1634 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("Local 1634"). [ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 3].

Defendant and Local 1634 were parties to a collective bargaining agreement (the "CBA") effective from May 4, 2013, through May 4, 2018. Id. ¶ 4. Article XX of the CBA governs leaves of absence. It states, in relevant part:

All leaves of absence shall be requested in writing and approved or disapproved in writing by the COMPANY. A request for leave of absence in writing is required for all absenteeism extending beyond three (3) consecutive days. Except as stated below, leaves of absences for sudden and unforeseen illness or accident, shall be granted automatically to seniority employees.
Section 1. Illness or Accident : Employees who are absent because of unforeseen illness or accident must apply for formal leave in writing as soon as practical.... Adequate proof must be presented by the employee, or a member of the employee's family on his/her behalf, that it was physically impossible for the employee to contact the COMPANY for consideration of a leave of absence or no automatic leave may be assumed and the employee shall be deemed to be absent without authorization.
....
Any employee, who is known to be ill, supported by satisfactory evidence, will be granted a [medical leave of absence] automatically, provided he/she complied with the above.

[ECF No. 36 at 5]. The excerpt of the CBA in the record does not state the consequences of failing to follow the procedures in Article XX. Likewise, the excerpt does not explain what constitutes "[a]dequate proof" that an employee could not contact the Company, the form of written leave for approval, or how to determine whether a request for leave has been made "as soon as practical."

The parties submitted several of Defendant's business records detailing policies that appear to, collectively, set out Defendant's leave of absence policy. The "Coralville Operations Attendance Policy" states that "[a]bsences beyond 3 consecutive working days without an approved leave of absence are considered a voluntary quit (AWOL)." Id. at 11. In the case of unforeseen medical absences, a "Medical Absences—Roles & Responsibilities" policy instructs employees to: (1) "[n]otify your facilitator of your absence"; (2) "[p]rovide a doctor's statement with the length of absence to your facilitator for proper coding of absence"; and (3) "[i]f you are unable to return to work on the 4th day, a doctor's statement is required by the beginning of the 4th day." Id. at 7. For medical absences exceeding three consecutive days, employees must "[c]ontact Health Services to initiate a medical leave of absence (MLOA).... A doctor's statement or completed Accident & Sickness [form]... must be received by Health Services or your facilitator by the beginning of the fourth day to excuse your absence and initiate your medical leave." Id. The parties agree these two policies were in place at the Coralville facility during the relevant time, but Plaintiff argues the evidence in the record is insufficient to determine whether Defendant actually followed these policies. See [ECF No. 37-2 ¶¶ 12–13].

As a member of Local 1634 (a "Collective Bargaining Employee") Holladay received and assented to a "Medical Leave of Absence Checklist." [ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 7]. For medical absences exceeding three consecutive days, Collective Bargaining Employees are instructed to "[c]ontact your Health Services ... and provide a medical statement ... from your physician no later than the start of your shift on the fourth day.... Failure to comply will result in you being AWOL (Absent without Leave), and will be terminated." [ECF No. 36 at 13]. The medical statement must contain: (1) the nature of the illness or injury; (2) the name of the employee's health care provider; (3) the date and time the employee last worked; (4) the expected date of return (if known); and (5) the name of the employee's supervisor. Id. The checklist stresses that "[p]hone calls are appreciated and are a courtesy, but not considered an approved leave of absence." Id. This point is further emphasized in a summary of the checklist, which states that a Collective Bargaining Employee "calling into their Manager or Health Services is NOT considered an Approved Medical Leave of Absence." Id. at 12. It adds, "if a [Collective Bargaining Employee] does NOT have the proper medical leave of absence statement from their Doctor to Health Services by the start of the employee's shift on the 4th day, the employee is considered AWOL ... and will be terminated." Id. Charles Holder, the business manager of Local 1634, testified in a deposition that the policy set out in the Medical Leave of Absence Checklist was consistently followed at the Coralville Plant. Id. at 83.

Plaintiff took leave under the Family Medical and Leave Act ("FMLA" or "the Act") in 2012 and 2015 for her own serious health condition. [ECF No. 35-1 ¶¶ 14–15, 18–19]. She also took approved FMLA leave in 2014 to care for one of her parents. Id. ¶¶16–17. On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff submitted to Defendant an "FMLA Request Form" for her own serious health condition. [ECF No. 36 at 19–21]. She described the condition as "recurrent migraines which are sporadic," and indicated that the dates on which she would require leave were unknown. Id. at 21. On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff submitted to Defendant a "Certification of Health Care Provider for Employee's Serious Health Condition" in support of her request for FMLA leave. Id. at 22–26. Plaintiff's physician, Dr. Ann Soenen, completed the certification. Id. at 25. Dr. Soenen described Plaintiff's condition as "intractable migraines

" and indicated she would "need to attend follow-up treatment appointments or work part-time or on a reduced schedule." Id. at 24–25. She estimated that this reduced schedule would consist of one or two hours per day, one day per week, from June 16, 2016, through December 16, 2016. Id. at 25. Dr. Soenen also estimated that, over the subsequent six months, Plaintiff would suffer from flare-ups two-to-three times per month, and would be incapacitated for one-to-two days per episode. Id.

Defendant approved Plaintiff's FMLA request in an "FMLA Designation Notice" dated June 29, 2016. Id. at 27. The notice approved Plaintiff for intermittent FMLA leave for her migraines for "1 to 2 hours per day for 6 months and for flare ups 2 to 3 times per month; up to 2 days in duration." Id. The Designation Notice instructed Plaintiff that "[i]f you are approved for flare ups, you must designate your leave as FMLA or [sic] any time you call in, otherwise your absences may count against the absence/attendance policy." Id. It also stated, "[i]f the absence(s) will be greater than 3 consecutive days regarding your own health condition, a medical leave of absence is required." Id.

Once the Company provides an employee with a Designation Notice that his or her FMLA leave is approved, that employee may identify an absence as FMLA leave by submitting a "Family Medical Leave Absence Identification Form" ("FMLA Absence Form") to his or her supervisor. [ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 26]. On that form, the employee lists the appropriate absence code, the date of the absence, and the amount of hours that should be treated as FMLA leave. See [ECF No. 36 at 31]. The FMLA Absence Form states that it should be completed and returned to the employee's supervisor for processing "within 2 business days of your return or receiving your designation letter." Id. Defendant states that its "sole requirement" for designating an absence as FMLA leave is the submission of the FMLA Absence Form. See [ECF No. 39 at 4].

From June 30, 2016, through July 15, 2016, Plaintiff was absent for all or part of eight work days. See [ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 35]. She took FMLA leave on June 30 (two hours), July 5 (eight hours), July 13 (eight hours) and July 14 (eight hours).3 Id. Other absences during this period included one full vacation day and two full sick days for a non-FMLA-related illness. See id.

Plaintiff was absent from work beginning Monday, July 18, 2016, and continuing through July 21, 2016. Id. ¶ 34. The parties agree that, on each of those days, Plaintiff left a voicemail in the early morning for her supervisor, Kathy Kooyman, to report her absence from work. See [ECF No. 37-2 ¶ 36]. However, the parties disagree as to any other details Plaintiff provided in those voicemails. In her deposition, Plaintiff testified that she said in her July 21 voicemail, "I had a migraine and I would not be in that day." [ECF No. 36...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Matson v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • July 23, 2019
    ...follow HIPAA requirements in receiving information from "a HIPAA-covered health care provider." Id. ; see Holladay v. Rockwell Collins, Inc. , 357 F. Supp. 3d 848, 861 (S.D. Iowa 2019) ("FMLA regulations limit what information employers may seek in such a certification, but generally employ......
  • Sukup Mfg. Co. v. Sioux Steel Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • February 11, 2019
    ... ... See Pall Corp. v. Hemasure Inc. , 181 F.3d 1305, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Although the construction of ... v. Rockwell Int'l Corp. , 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that when the ... ...
  • Render v. FCA U.S. LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • July 20, 2021
    ... ... of Wausau v. Petrol ... Specialties, Inc". , 69 F.3d 98, 102 (6th Cir. 1995) ... Second, ... \xE2\x80" ... Reg. 67934-01, at 68009 ... Holladay v. Rockwell Collins, Inc. , 357 F.Supp.3d ... 848, 859 (S.D. Iowa ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT