Miles v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500

• Decision Date: 16 October 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 17-2685-DDC-TJJ
• Citation: 347 F.Supp.3d 626
• Parties: Susan M. MILES, Plaintiff, v. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 500, KANSAS CITY, KANSAS and Valerie Castillo, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

347 F.Supp.3d 626

Susan M. MILES, Plaintiff,

v.UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 500, KANSAS CITY, KANSAS and Valerie Castillo, Defendants.

Case No. 17-2685-DDC-TJJ

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

Signed October 16, 2018

Michael Stipetich, Smith Mohlman Injury Law, LLC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.

Gregory P. Goheen, McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, P.A., Kansas City, KS, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Daniel D. Crabtree, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Susan Miles's lawsuit arises from her discharge as a teacher at McKinley Elementary School in Kansas City, Kansas. Plaintiff filed suit against two defendants: Unified School District No. 500, Kansas City, Kansas ("the District") and Valerie Castillo. Doc. 1. Ms. Castillo is the Principal of McKinley Elementary School. Relevant here is the single claim plaintiff brings against Ms. Castillo: Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Castillo discriminated and retaliated against plaintiff for taking leave under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA").

Ms. Castillo has moved to dismiss plaintiff's FMLA claim against her under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Doc. 17. She makes four arguments supporting dismissal. First, she contends that the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to show that she was plaintiff's "employer," as defined by the FMLA. Second, she asserts that the Complaint does not allege facts capable of establishing that plaintiff engaged in an FMLA-protected activity. Third, Ms. Castillo argues that the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to show that Ms. Castillo took materially adverse action against her. Fourth, Ms. Castillo contends, even if plaintiff pleaded a sufficient FMLA claim, qualified immunity protects her from suit.

Plaintiff then filed a Response. Doc. 27. And Ms. Castillo filed a timely Reply. Doc. 30. After considering the arguments and authorities presented in the parties' papers, the court denies Ms. Castillo's Motion to Dismiss.

I. Facts

The following facts come from plaintiff's Complaint. Doc. 1. The court accepts the facts asserted in the Complaint as true and views them in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Burnett v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. , 706 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2013) (citing Smith v. United States , 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009) ).

Defendant Unified School District No. 500, Kansas City, Kansas ("the District") entered into a teaching contract with plaintiff in 2007. This contract automatically renewed every year. In 2016, plaintiff worked at McKinley Elementary School. Ms. Castillo was McKinley's Principal. Ms. Castillo supervised plaintiff's work and had the ability to make decisions affecting the terms and conditions of plaintiff's employment with the District.

On April 8, 2016, a McKinley student tripped plaintiff while she was teaching. Plaintiff fell, knocking her unconscious. As a result, plaintiff suffered a concussion, occipital nerve damage, a back sprain, a neck sprain, and a foot fracture. She was diagnosed with occipital neuralgia and post-concussive syndrome, which caused vision problems, severe headaches, confusion, and dizziness. On May 11, 2016, plaintiff applied for FMLA leave because of her occipital neuralgia. The District approved plaintiff's request and gave her medical leave for the remainder of the 2015–16 school year. Later that month, Ms. Castillo directed plaintiff to complete all her lesson plans for the next school year before she began her FMLA leave. And, in May 2016, while plaintiff was on FMLA leave, Ms. Castillo made plaintiff return to school and clean out her classroom at the end of the school year. While plaintiff completed these tasks, Ms. Castillo implored plaintiff to return to work.

Plaintiff and the District allowed plaintiff's contract to renew automatically for the 2016–17 school year. On August 16, 2016, the District approved plaintiff's second FMLA request extending her leave through November 2, 2016. At the end of this leave, the District then approved an unpaid leave of absence from November 3, 2016, to January 4, 2017. In December 2016, the District's worker's compensation physician released plaintiff to return to work, effective January 4, 2017. Plaintiff then went to McKinley to deliver the doctor's work release forms to Ms. Castillo. While she was there, plaintiff asked Ms. Castillo what she had missed while she was gone. Ms. Castillo responded, "Half a year of school." Ms. Castillo later told plaintiff, "[Y]ou need to get out of here so our people can work." On January 4, 2017, Ms. Castillo, either individually or in concert with the District, discharged plaintiff's employment.

II. Legal Standard

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts all facts pleaded by the non-moving party as true and draws any reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Brokers' Choice of Am. v. NBC Universal, Inc. , 757 F.3d 1125, 1136 (10th Cir. 2014). "To survive a motion to dismiss [under Rule 12(b)(6) ], a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "Under this standard, ‘the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims.’ " Carter v. United States , 667 F.Supp.2d 1259, 1262 (D. Kan. 2009) (quoting Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider , 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007) ).

Although this Rule "does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ " it demands more than "[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action’ " which, as the Supreme Court has explained, simply "will not do." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). This is so because the court need not "accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (quoting Papasan v. Allain , 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (internal quotation omitted) ).

III. Discussion

A. Plaintiff's Complaint States a Plausible Claim That Ms. Castillo is Plaintiff's Employer Under the FMLA.

When a plaintiff brings an FMLA retaliation or discrimination claim, plaintiff must establish that the defendant is her employer. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1), (2). The FMLA defines an "employer" as "any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of the employer to any of the employees of such employer. Id. § 2511(4)(A)(ii)(I). And, 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(d) provides additional context:

An employer includes any person who acts directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer to any of the employer's employees. The definition of employer in section 3(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 203(d), similarly includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. As under the FLSA, individuals such as corporate officers "acting in the interest of an employer" are individually liable for any violations of the requirements of FMLA.

The Tenth Circuit has not decided whether an individual supervisor may be an "employer" under the FMLA, and thus liable for FMLA violations. But, in Saavedra v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. , District Judge James Browning, after reviewing the relevant case law, found that the majority of circuit courts confronting the issue had concluded that individuals may be held liable as "employers" under the FMLA. 748 F.Supp.2d 1273, 1283 (D.N.M. 2010) (citing Darby v. Bratch , 287 F.3d 673, 680–81 (8th Cir. 2002) (other citations omitted) ); see also Saavedra , 748 F.Supp.2d at 1284 (collecting district court cases in the Tenth Circuit and holding that the FMLA provides for individual liability). The court predicts that, if presented with this issue, the Tenth Circuit would follow the majority view and hold that an individual may be subject to liability as an "employer" under the FMLA. See Richards v. Schoen , No. 17-4080-SAC, 2018 WL 447731, at *5 (D. Kan. Jan. 17, 2018) (following the holding of the "majority of the courts" and concluding that "the FMLA allows for suits against public officials in their individual capacity"). But see Abrogast v. Kansas , No. 13-4007-JAR, 2014 WL 1304939, at *4 (D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2014) (concluding "that public officials are not ‘employers’ subject to liability under the FMLA").

Judge Browning then posited that the Tenth Circuit would apply the "economic-reality test" to decide which individual would be considered "employers" under the FMLA. Id. at 1293 ; see also Cordova v. New Mexico , 283 F.Supp.3d 1028, 1039 (D.N.M. 2017). The court finds Judge Browning's reasoning persuasive, and also agrees that the Tenth Circuit, if presented with this question, would apply the economic reality test here. " ‘The economic reality test includes inquiries into whether the alleged employer has the power to hire and fire employees, supervises and controls employee work schedules or conditions of employment, determines the rate and method of payment, and maintains employment records.’ " Cordova , 283 F.Supp.3d at 1039 (quoting Baker v. Flint Eng'g & Constr. Co. , 137 F.3d 1436, 1440 (10th Cir. 1998) ). The court also should consider the defendant's involvement and control over the plaintiff's ability to take FMLA leave. Id. at 1040. No single one of these factors controls the result. Id. at 1039. And, contractual terminology does not bind the court. Baker , 137 F.3d at 1440. Instead, " ‘courts ask...