Hudson v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 12-CV-2079-LRR

• Court: United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
• Writing for the Court: LINDA R. READE
• Parties: DELBERT E. HUDSON, Plaintiff, v. TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC., Defendant.
• Docket Number: 12-CV-2079-LRR
• Decision Date: 26 February 2014

DELBERT E. HUDSON, Plaintiff,
v.
TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC., Defendant.

12-CV-2079-LRR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION

DATED: February 26, 2014

ORDER
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION....................................... 2

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY.................................. 2

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.......................... 2

IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD......................... 3

V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND................................. 3

A. Parties........................................... 4
B. Hudson's Employment at Tyson Prior to the Dispute at Issue....... 4
C. Disciplinary Action and Absences from Work................. 5
D. January 2, 2012 Doctor Visit............................ 6
E. Hudson's Application for Leave.......................... 7
F. Return to Work..................................... 9
G. Termination....................................... 9

VI. ANALYSIS........................................... 11

A. FMLA.......................................... 11
B. Hudson's Claims................................... 16
C. Entitlement Claim.................................. 18

1. Parties' arguments............................. 18
2. Applicable law................................ 21
3. Application.................................. 22

D. Retaliation Claim................................... 24

1. Parties' arguments............................. 24
2. Applicable law................................ 24
3. Application.................................. 26

Page 2

VII. CONCLUSION........................................ 29

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is Defendant Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.'s ("Tyson") Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") (docket no. 12).

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 9, 2012, Plaintiff Delbert E. Hudson filed a one-count Petition ("Complaint") (docket no. 3) in the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Case No. LACV 120148, alleging that Tyson violated his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") by interfering with his exercise of his FMLA rights and by terminating his employment in direct retaliation to him applying for and taking FMLA leave.¹ On November 6, 2012, Tyson removed the action to this court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Notice of Removal (docket no. 2). On November 15, 2013, Tyson filed the Motion. On December 16, 2013, Hudson filed a Resistance (docket no. 15). On December 24, 2013, Tyson filed a Reply (docket no. 18). Neither party has requested oral argument and the court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. The Motion is fully submitted and ready for decision.

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The court has federal question jurisdiction over Hudson's claim that Tyson violated Hudson's rights under the FMLA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.").²

Page 3

IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case." Amini v. City of Minneapolis, 643 F.3d 1068, 1074 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 252 (1986)), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1144 (2012). "[S]elf-serving allegations and denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact." Anuforo v. Comm'r, 614 F.3d 799, 807 (8th Cir. 2010). "To survive a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must substantiate [its] allegations with sufficient probative evidence [that] would permit a finding in [its] favor based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy." Barber v. C1 Truck Driver Training, LLC, 656 F.3d 782, 801 (8th Cir. 2011) (second alteration in original) (quoting Putman v. Unity Health Sys., 348 F.3d 732, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and afford it all reasonable inferences. See Schmidt v. Des Moines Pub. Sch., 655 F.3d 811, 819 (8th Cir. 2011).

V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Hudson and affording him all reasonable inferences, the material facts are these:

Page 4

A. Parties

Hudson is a resident of Waterloo, Iowa, who began working as a supervisor on the kill floor, or hot side, of Tyson's meat-packing plant in Waterloo, Iowa, in November 2010.

Tyson operates a meat-packing plant in Waterloo, Iowa, and in other locations throughout the state and country.

B. Hudson's Employment at Tyson Prior to the Dispute at Issue

Hudson was a supervisor on the hot side at Tyson from November 1, 2010 to March 20, 2011. On March 20, 2011, Tyson transferred Hudson to a supervisor position on the cut floor, or cold side, of Tyson's Waterloo, Iowa, plant.

While working on the hot side at Tyson, Hudson had sporadic health-related absences. Whenever he requested time off from his supervisor, Hamdija Beganovic, he was given it, provided that he gave appropriate notice. In March 2011, Hudson informed the superintendent of the hot side, Don Brophy, that he did not feel like he was being treated fairly on the hot side and that he was yelled at for things beyond his control. Hudson told Brophy that he would leave if things did not change. Hudson then quit his job on the hot side.³ Tyson offered Hudson a position on the cold side away from the

Page 5

department manager⁴ who Hudson alleges mistreated him, and Hudson began working on the cold side on March 20, 2011. Hudson performed adequately and met the expectations of his employer before the incident that led to his termination.

C. Disciplinary Action and Absences from Work

On December 27, 2011, Tom Hart, a night manager at Tyson's Waterloo plant, disciplined Hudson for not talking to one of his team members about a work injury and for not letting the team member go to the clinic. Hudson was upset and frustrated by this disciplinary action.

On December 28, 2011, Hudson realized that "it would likely be some time before [he] would be able to return to work" because of his "existing state of health." Hudson Affidavit, Hudson App'x at 50. He told his then-girlfriend, Rambo, who worked and continues to work for Tyson, to tell Beganovic the following day that he "may be out for a few days." Hudson Deposition, Tyson App'x at 18. During the relevant period, Hudson did not know whether Rambo conveyed this message to Beganovic.⁵ However, the record indicates that Rambo did pass on a message from Hudson to...