Johnson v. Dollar Gen., No. C 11–3038–MWB.
| Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa |
| Writing for the Court | MARK W. BENNETT |
| Citation | 880 F.Supp.2d 967 |
| Parties | Todd JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR GENERAL; Dolgencorp, L.L.C.; and Michael Williams, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 30 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. C 11–3038–MWB. |
880 F.Supp.2d 967
Todd JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v.
DOLLAR GENERAL; Dolgencorp, L.L.C.; and Michael Williams, Defendants.
No. C 11–3038–MWB.
United States District Court,
N.D. Iowa,
Central Division.
July 30, 2012.
[880 F.Supp.2d 970]
Eric Michael Updegraff, Stoltze & Updegraff, P.C., Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.
Ellen L. Perlioni, Jason R. Elliott, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Dallas, TX, Karin Johnson, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.
MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.
+-------------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS ¦
+-------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+----------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦I. ¦INTRODUCTION ¦971 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦Factual Background ¦971 ¦
+---+----+------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦B. ¦Procedural Background ¦974 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦II. ¦LEGAL ANALYSIS ¦977 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦Standards For Summary Judgment ¦977 ¦
+---+----+------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦B. ¦Johnson's FMLA Claims ¦979 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Arguments of the parties ¦979 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦The defendants' opening arguments ¦979 ¦
+---+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Johnson's response ¦980 ¦
+---+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦The defendants' reply ¦982 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Analysis ¦982 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦FMLA overview ¦982 ¦
+---+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦FMLA “interference” claims ¦983 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i. ¦Nature and proof ¦983 ¦
+---+---+---+---+-----+----------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii. ¦Johnson's “interference” claims ¦985 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦FMLA “retaliation” claim ¦987 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i. ¦Nature and proof ¦987 ¦
+---+---+---+---+-----+----------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii. ¦Johnson's “retaliation” claim ¦994 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦C. ¦Johnson's Workers Compensation Retaliation Claim ¦996 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Arguments of the parties ¦996 ¦
+---+----+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Analysis ¦997 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Individual liability ¦997 ¦
+---+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Proof of the claim ¦998 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦D. ¦Johnson's Emotional Distress Claim ¦1000 ¦
+---+----+------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦E. ¦Johnson's Claim For Payment Of A Bonus ¦1001 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Arguments of the parties ¦1001 ¦
+---+----+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Analysis ¦1001 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------+---------------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III. ¦CONCLUSION ¦1003 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
[880 F.Supp.2d 971]
In this action, which was removed to this federal court, a former store manager alleges that the retail store chain for which he worked and his district manager terminated him when he missed work for five days approximately five months after he suffered a heart attack. He asserts state-law claims of retaliation for processing workers compensation claims and intentional infliction of emotional distress and a federal claim of violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2612–2615, arising from the termination of his employment. He also asserts a claim pursuant to the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law (IWPCL), Iowa Code Ch. 91A, to recover a quarterly bonus allegedly due him at the time his employment ended. The store chain and the district manager have moved for summary judgment on all of the former store manager's claims. They argue, among other things, that there is no genuine dispute that the store manager resigned his job without coercion from his employers; that he did not suffer from a “serious health condition” and cannot meet other requirements of his FMLA claims; that he did not engage in any protected activity related to workers compensation claims and was not subjected to any adverse employment action if he did; that his “emotional distress” claim is pre-empted by Iowa's workers compensation law; and that he was not entitled to any bonus, because he was not employed on the date of the bonus payout. Although the former store manager concedes that his “emotional distress” claim is not viable, he resists summary judgment on his other claims. Thus, I must determine whether any of the former store manager's three disputed claims should be heard by a jury.
I set forth here only those facts, disputed and undisputed, sufficient to put in context the parties' arguments concerning the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
[880 F.Supp.2d 972]
Unless otherwise indicated, the facts recited here are undisputed, at least for purposes of summary judgment. I will discuss additional factual allegations, and the extent to which they are or are not disputed or material, if necessary, in my legal analysis.
Defendant Dolgencorp, L.L.C., is a corporation that operates a chain of retail stores under the trade name “Dollar General.” The plaintiff and the defendants have referred to the corporate defendant as “Dollar General,” and I will do the same. Dollar General hired plaintiff Todd Johnson in December 2007 and, after an initial period of training, assigned him to be the manager of the Dollar General store in Garner, Iowa, beginning in January 2008. Store managers report to a district manager or DM. Johnson's DM from June 2008 until the end of Johnson's employment with Dollar General was defendant Michael Williams.
Johnson received an employee handbook outlining Dollar General's FMLA policy, received additional training on that policy, and was aware of posters in his store that addressed FMLA policies and issues. Dollar General's vacation policy generally required scheduling of vacations 30 days in advance, with exceptions allowed by the DM. Dollar General's attendance and absence policies required an employee to call the employee's supervisor if the employee could not report to work as scheduled and also provided that store managers were expected to discuss the situation “live” with a supervisor. Dollar General did not provide “sick leave.” In addition to regular compensation, Dollar General maintained a “Teamshare” bonus plan under its Retail Incentive Plan, which provided quarterly bonuses to eligible store managers. The eligibility requirements for such a bonus were, in pertinent part, that the store manager was “[a]ctively employed in an eligible position during the fiscal year” and “[e]mployed with Dollar General through the bonus calculation period and on the date of bonus payout ... [u]nless otherwise required by state law.” Defendants' Appendix at 50 (Fiscal Year 2009 Store Manager Retail Incentive Plan).
Johnson suffered a knee injury at work in October 2008, which caused him to miss a few days of work. Johnson received workers compensation benefits for that injury. Although Dollar General asserts that Johnson had no communications with Williams about the October 2008 workers compensation claim, and Johnson does not allege any negative response to it by Williams,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonkowski v. Oberg Indus., Inc., No. 14–1239.
...have indicated that a mere visit to a hospital emergency room is not enough to satisfy § 825.114. See, e.g., Johnson v. Dollar Gen., 880 F.Supp.2d 967, 987 (N.D.Iowa 2012) (“Neither a trip to the emergency room nor an in-person visit with the on-call doctor—both of which Johnson's doctor's ......
-
Haskenhoff v. Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC, No. 15-0574
...N.W.2d at 577 (denying recovery based in part on employee's "rash and intemperate" act of resigning); cf. ≠ Johnson v. Dollar Gen. , 880 F.Supp.2d 967, 998 n.6 (N.D. Iowa 2012) ("[T]he Iowa Supreme Court has observed that 'conditions will not be considered intolerable [so as to constitute c......
-
Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., No. C 11–4047–MWB.
...involving claims for wrongful discharge [964 F.Supp.2d 977]in violation of Iowa's public policy. See, e.g., Johnson v. Dollar Gen., 880 F.Supp.2d 967, 997 (N.D.Iowa 2012), aff'd,508 Fed.Appx. 587 (8th Cir.2013); Campbell v. Iowa Third Judicial Dist. Dep't of Corr., No. C09–4087–MWB, 2011 WL......
-
Dalton v. Manor Care of W. Des Moines IA, LLC, No. 4:12-cv-00172 - JEG
...and it "makes them unable to perform the functions of their position." (citing 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D))); Johnson v. Dollar Gen., 880 F. Supp. 2d 967, 986 (N.D. Iowa 2012) (noting that an employee must show he or she suffered from a serious health condition and that the absence at issue w......
-
Bonkowski v. Oberg Indus., Inc., No. 14–1239.
...have indicated that a mere visit to a hospital emergency room is not enough to satisfy § 825.114. See, e.g., Johnson v. Dollar Gen., 880 F.Supp.2d 967, 987 (N.D.Iowa 2012) (“Neither a trip to the emergency room nor an in-person visit with the on-call doctor—both of which Johnson's doctor's ......
-
Haskenhoff v. Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC, No. 15-0574
...N.W.2d at 577 (denying recovery based in part on employee's "rash and intemperate" act of resigning); cf. ≠ Johnson v. Dollar Gen. , 880 F.Supp.2d 967, 998 n.6 (N.D. Iowa 2012) ("[T]he Iowa Supreme Court has observed that 'conditions will not be considered intolerable [so as to constitute c......
-
Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., No. C 11–4047–MWB.
...involving claims for wrongful discharge [964 F.Supp.2d 977]in violation of Iowa's public policy. See, e.g., Johnson v. Dollar Gen., 880 F.Supp.2d 967, 997 (N.D.Iowa 2012), aff'd,508 Fed.Appx. 587 (8th Cir.2013); Campbell v. Iowa Third Judicial Dist. Dep't of Corr., No. C09–4087–MWB, 2011 WL......
-
Dalton v. Manor Care of W. Des Moines IA, LLC, No. 4:12-cv-00172 - JEG
...and it "makes them unable to perform the functions of their position." (citing 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D))); Johnson v. Dollar Gen., 880 F. Supp. 2d 967, 986 (N.D. Iowa 2012) (noting that an employee must show he or she suffered from a serious health condition and that the absence at issue w......