Rice v. Kellermeyer Co.
| Decision Date | 15 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:13-cv-00263 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
| Parties | Ronald Rice, Plaintiff v. Kellermeyer Company, Defendant |
Before me is the motion of Defendant Kellermeyer Company for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 33). Plaintiff Ronald Rice has filed a response to Kellermeyer's motion. (Doc. No. 41). Kellermeyer filed a reply. (Doc. No. 43). For the reasons stated below, I deny Kellermeyer's motion for summary judgment on all claims.
A district court shall grant a party's motion for summary judgment if the movant demonstrates there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The movant may meet its burden by showing there is an absence of evidence to support an element of a claim on which the nonmovant has the ultimate burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the movant has satisfied its burden, the nonmovant then must set forth "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88 (1986). All evidence mustbe viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, and all reasonable inferences drawn in the nonmovant's favor. White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381, 390 (6th Cir. 2008). A factual dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could resolve the dispute and return a verdict in the nonmovant's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A disputed fact is material only if its resolution might affect the outcome of the case under the governing substantive law. Rogers v. O'Donnell, 737 F.3d 1026, 1030 (6th Cir. 2013).
Rice worked for Kellermeyer as the Vice-President of Sales from January 2011 until his termination on June 15, 2012. At the beginning of 2012, Rice announced to his coworkers that his wife was pregnant with their first child. (Doc. No. 25 at 23; Doc. No. 26 at 6). Days later, Rice was assigned to additional duties, previously filled by a full-time employee who had just left Kellermeyer. (Doc. No. 31-6 at 1).
On June 6, Rice requested permission to use vacation time from June 11 through June 15, in part because of "an unexpected appointment" for his pregnant wife. (Doc. No. 32-1 at 3). Jill Kegler, as Rice's supervisor and Kellermeyer's Co-President along with her husband Greg Kegler, reviewed his request and declined to permit Rice to use paid leave to cover June 14 and June 15. She informed Rice that if he "chose to take those days off, they will be unpaid." (Doc No. 32-2 at 1). Rice subsequently requested Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") paperwork from Michele Miles, Kellermeyer's director of human resources, to enable him to attend the appointment, explaining that Jill had not approved his request for paid time off. (Doc. No. 29 at 29). On June 15, 2012, three days after he requested the FMLA paperwork, Rice was terminated. (Doc. No. 39 at 28). Jill hired Mike Pisa to replace Rice, and Pisa started a few days after Rice's termination. (Doc. No. 30 at 47).
Rice contends Kellermeyer violated provisions of the FMLA by interfering with, restraining, or denying Rice the exercise of rights provided under the FMLA and retaliating against Rice by discharging him for asserting or otherwise exercising his rights under the FMLA. (Doc. No. 1 at 3). Kellermeyer asserts Rice's termination was a result of months of his failure to reach goals, execute plans, and meet the expectations of a Vice-President of Sales.
The Sixth Circuit recognizes two distinct theories for recovery under the FMLA: (1) the "interference" theory arising under 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1), and (2) the "retaliation" theory arising under 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2). Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., 681 F.3d 274, 282 (6th Cir. 2012). Rice has brought claims under both theories, asserting Kellermeyer interfered with his rights under the FMLA and that his termination was the result of retaliation for his attempt to utilize his FMLA rights.
The interference provision of the FMLA makes it unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise any right provided in the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1). To establish a prima facie case of interference under the FMLA, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) he was an eligible employee; (2) the defendant was an employer as defined in the FMLA; (3) he was entitled to leave under the FMLA; (4) he gave defendant notice of his intention to take leave; and (5) the defendant denied the plaintiff FMLA benefits to which he was entitled. Edgar v. Jac Prods., Inc., 443 F.3d 501, 507 (6th Cir. 2006). The interference theory does not convert the FMLA into a strict-liability statute because "interference with an employee's FMLA rights does not constitute a violation if the employer has a legitimate reason unrelated to the exercise of the FMLA rights for engaging in the challenged conduct." Id. at 508.
Rice identifies evidence to establish, and Kellermeyer does not directly dispute, the existence of the five elements necessary to form an interference claim. Instead, Kellermeyer offers an explanation for his termination it claims to be unrelated to Rice's FMLA claim, which I will address below.
The FMLA also makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge an employee for a reason prohibited by the statute. Seeger, 681 F.3d at 282; see 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2). In contrast to the interference theory, here the defendant's motive "is relevant because retaliation claims impose liability on employers that act against employees specifically because those employees invoked their FMLA rights." Seeger, 681 F.3d at 282 (quoting Edgar, 443 F.3d at 508) (emphasis in original). To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the plaintiff must show that: (1) he was engaged in an activity the FMLA protects; (2) the defendant knew he was exercising his FMLA rights; (3) the defendant took an employment action adverse to him; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected FMLA activity and the adverse employment action. Jaszczyszyn v. Advantage Health Physician Network, 504 F. App'x 440, 447 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Killian v. Yorozu Auto. Tenn., Inc., 454 F.3d 549, 556 (6th Cir. 2006)). The plaintiff's burden to establish a prime facie case is not difficult; instead the burden is easily met. Wrenn v. Gould, 808 F.2d 493, 500 (6th Cir. 1987) (citing Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981)). Kellermeyer asserts that Rice cannot establish the second and fourth criteria of his prima facie case.
Kellermeyer claims Rice can show no evidence that Jill knew about the FMLA request prior to terminating Rice. The Sixth Circuit has held "one cannot retaliate against an employee for engaging in protected activity unless he knew the employee had done so." Scott v. Eastman Chem. Co., 275 F. App'x. 466, 482 (6th Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). Knowledge may be inferred from evidencein the record. Id.; see, e.g., Proffitt v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 150 F. App'x 439, 442-43 (6th Cir. 2005); Bills v. Aseltine, 958 F.2d 697, 708 (6th Cir. 1992) (). Rice points to evidence in the record sufficient to show there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Kellermeyer's decision makers had knowledge of his protected activities.
First, Rice asserts a reasonable juror could infer Jill learned of Rice's FMLA request from Greg, Michelle Miles, or both. After Rice informed Miles he needed FMLA paperwork because Jill had not approved his request for time off to attend his wife's appointment, Miles conducted an internet search to obtain the necessary documents, as there were no copies in her office. (Doc. No. 29 at 29). Moreover, several days before Rice's termination, Miles informed Greg that Rice had requested FMLA paperwork. (Doc. No. 25 at 30). Greg testified he is normally notified of a FMLA request only if an employee who directly reports to him is approved for leave. (Doc. No. 25 at 30). Consequently, the conversation between Miles and Greg was unusual because Rice did not directly report to Greg, nor had the leave request been approved. (Doc. No. 25 at 31).
Kellermeyer asserts this circumstantial evidence is not enough to overcome the deposition testimony from Miles, Jill, and Greg that neither Miles nor Greg told Jill of Rice's FMLA request. (See Doc. No. 29 at 29; Doc. No. 25 at 31). Rice argues I should disregard this testimony at the summary judgment stage because Miles, Greg, and Jill are interested witnesses, and the jury would not be required to believe their statements. The Supreme Court has instructed lower courts weighing Rule 501 motions to "give credence to the evidence favoring the nonmovant as well as that evidence supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that the evidence comes from disinterested witnesses." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod. Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 151 (2000) (emphasis added). This does not require a court to disregard all evidence providedby an interested witness in support of the moving party, as "defendants will often be able to respond only through the testimony of their employees." Stratienko v. Cordis Corp., 429 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Almond v. Abb Indus. Sys., Inc., 56 F. App'x 672, 675 (6th Cir. 2003)). It is well established "that courts need not deny the conclusiveness of testimony of the moving party that 'is not contradicted by direct evidence, nor by any legitimate inferences from the evidence[,]' because the rule requiring the testimony be considered by the jury is not 'an absolute and inflexible one.'" Stratienko, 429 F.3d at 598 (quoting Chesapeake & Ohio Ry....
To continue reading
Request your trial