Ruble v. American River Transp. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 June 2011
• Docket Number: No. 2:10 CV 24 DDN.,2:10 CV 24 DDN.
• Citation: 161 Lab.Cas. P 35922,799 F.Supp.2d 1017
• Parties: Jack D. RUBLE, II, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN RIVER TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

161 Lab.Cas. P 35,922

799 F.Supp.2d 1017

Jack D. RUBLE, II, Plaintiff,

v.AMERICAN RIVER TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Defendant.

No. 2:10 CV 24 DDN.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division.

June 29, 2011.

John M. Hark, Curl and Hark, Hannibal, MO, for Plaintiff.

Richard E. Boyle, Gundlach and Lee, Belleville, IL, Timothy A. Wolfe, Meckler and Bulger, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID D. NOCE, United States Magistrate Judge.

This action is before the court on the motion of defendant American River Transportation Company for summary judgment. (Doc. 23.) The parties have consented to the exercise of plenary authority by the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 9.) Oral arguments were heard on June 16, 2011.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 30, 2010, plaintiff Jack D. Ruble, II commenced this action against his former employer, defendant American River Transportation Company. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant unlawfully terminated his employment when he attempted to exercise his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). ( Id.) Plaintiff seeks compensation for his lost wages, lost employment benefits, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and reinstatement or front pay through his retirement age. ( Id.)

II. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because the FMLA does not authorize leave to care for grandparents, nor does it protect “mere visitation” of a family member suffering from a serious health condition. Defendant further argues that even if plaintiff's grandmother qualified under the FMLA and even if plaintiff provided care for his grandmother, plaintiff failed to provide adequate, timely notice of his need for FMLA leave. (Doc. 23.)

Plaintiff responds that his right to care for his grandmother was secured by the FMLA because his grandmother cared for him as a child. Plaintiff also responds that he timely notified the chief engineer, the ship's captain, and the personnel manager of the seriousness of his grandmother's illness, that he needed to go care for her, and that his grandmother raised him. (Doc. 26.)

Defendant replies that plaintiff did not actually say that his grandmother raised him. Defendant also replies that plaintiff said only that he wanted to go see his grandmother, and not that he needed to go care for her. Defendant further replies that plaintiff did not raise his request for FMLA leave in a timely manner. (Doc. 28.)

III. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS ¹

On August 12, 1998, plaintiff began working for defendant as a deckhand. ² (Doc. 1 at ¶ 4; Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 3, 6.) From August of 1998 to November of 2007, plaintiff held positions with defendant as a deckineer, oiler, assistant engineer, and chief engineer. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 5; Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 7, 8.) In November of 2007, defendant granted plaintiff's request to be demoted from a chief engineer to an assistant engineer. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 8.) As a result of his new position, plaintiff changed from working on the vessel Starfire to the vessel John H. MacMillian Jr. (John H). ( Id.) The John H is a “live-on” vessel, which required plaintiff to stay aboard for 26 to 34 days at a time. ( Id. at ¶¶ 12, 13.)

As an assistant engineer, plaintiff's duties included supporting the chief engineer, working with the chief engineer to avoid and to correct any mechanical failures, preparing and maintaining mechanical systems, and performing routine maintenance while aboard the John H. ( Id. at ¶¶ 10, 11.) Plaintiff worked on rotating six-hour shifts with the chief engineer. ( Id. at ¶¶ 14–16.) During his shifts, plaintiff also assumed some of the chief engineer's duties. ( Id. at ¶ 17.) The chief engineer and the assistant engineer reported directly to the port engineer, Jason Porter. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 18.) As port engineer, Porter was responsible for overseeing all engineering aspects of defendant's vessels and for working with port personnel to obtain relief for engineers. ( Id. at ¶ 19.)

Defendant's Leave Policies

Defendant maintained its Administrative and Personnel Policies in an Operations Manual. ( Id. at ¶ 21.) A copy of the Operations Manual was present in electronic form on board each of defendant's vessels, including the John H. ( Id. at ¶¶ 21, 24, 25.) Plaintiff received training on defendant's policies and procedures, and was expected to know the policy and procedure information contained in the Operations Manual. ( Id. at ¶¶ 22, 23.)

The Operations Manual addresses requests for leave made under the FMLA:

Leaves of Absence

For requests for Family Medical Leave (FMLA), call your Personnel Manager and request Family Medical Leave paperwork with as much advance notice as possible.

( Id. at ¶ 26; Doc. 25–4 at 5.)

The Operations Manual also lists grounds for immediate dismissal, including:

For line boat personnel only:

Departing the vessel without proper relief or authorization by the Captain, other officer in charge, or the Personnel Department will be treated as a resignation.

(Doc. 25 at ¶ 27; Doc. 25–4 at 6.)

Events from March 29, 2008 to April 14, 2008

On March 29, 2008, plaintiff boarded the John H to commence another voyage. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 28; Doc. 29 at ¶ 1.) At that time, plaintiff knew that his 90–year–old grandmother, Elma J. Ruble, was ill. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 29.) Due to significant strife within his family, plaintiff was raised primarily, and for a number of years exclusively, by his grandmother. (Doc. 29 at ¶ 2.)

Upon boarding the John H, plaintiff told the chief engineer that his grandmother was ill, and that he wanted to provide advance notice that he might need to leave the vessel. ( Id. at ¶¶ 3, 4.) Plaintiff also told the captain of the John H, Nate Wolfe, that his grandmother was ill and that he may need to take leave during the voyage. ( Id. at ¶ 5.)

On Thursday, April 10, 2008, plaintiff received a telephone call from his family, informing him that his grandmother had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and was not expected to live more than a week. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 31; Doc. 29 at ¶ 15.) That day, plaintiff told Wolfe that his grandmother was ill and that he wanted to leave the John H and return home to see his grandmother. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 32.) Wolfe instructed plaintiff to e-mail the Personnel Manager responsible for staffing vessels, Michelle Wittman. ( Id. at ¶¶ 20, 32.)

Either that day or the next day, plaintiff called Wittman and told her that his grandmother was ill, and that he needed to go see her before she died because she had taken care of him. ( Id. at ¶ 33; Doc. 29 at ¶¶ 6, 7.) Wittman then called the other assistant engineer for the John H, Kirk Jones, at his home in Kentucky, to see if he could relieve plaintiff. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 35.) Plaintiff called Wittman again several times before finally receiving a response that the quickest a replacement could be substituted was Monday, April 14, 2008. (Doc. 29 at ¶ 8.) Plaintiff replied that Monday, April 14, 2008 was the latest he could leave, but that he could wait until then. ( Id. at ¶ 9.)

Plaintiff also spoke with Wolfe about his wanting to leave the John H, and Wolfe instructed plaintiff to call the St. Louis Port office. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 36.) Plaintiff then spoke with Porter about wanting to leave the John H. ( Id. at ¶ 37.) Porter asked plaintiff if he needed to leave the John H immediately. ( Id. at ¶ 39.) Plaintiff said that he did not, and they agreed to discuss the situation on Monday, April 14, 2008.( Id.) Porter told plaintiff to keep him informed over the weekend if the situation changed. ( Id. at ¶ 40.)

On Saturday, April 12, 2008, plaintiff asked Wolfe if there were any FMLA materials on the vessel. ( Id. at ¶ 41.) Plaintiff and Wolfe looked for FMLA materials, but did not find any. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 41.) No such forms were maintained aboard defendant's vessels. ( Id. at ¶ 46.) Under defendant's policies, once an employee made an FMLA leave request to the Personnel Manager or Crew Dispatcher, the necessary documents would be forwarded to the employee for completion. ( Id. at ¶ 45.)

Also that day, plaintiff booked a flight departing from New Orleans on Monday April 14, 2008, despite not having gotten confirmation that relief would be available to replace him Monday. ( Id. at ¶ 48.) Over the weekend, plaintiff did not tell Porter, Wittman, or anyone in the Port office that he booked the flight. ( Id. at ¶ 49.) Plaintiff's grandmother's condition remained unchanged over the weekend of April 12–13, 2008. ( Id. at ¶ 44.)

On Monday, April 14, 2008, Porter told plaintiff that his replacement, Jones, would arrive the next day. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 50.) Plaintiff told Wolfe that he would not wait until the next day, that he would not reschedule his flight, and that he was leaving the John H that day. ( Id. at ¶ 51; Doc. 29 at ¶ 17.) Plaintiff said that he felt he had given defendant sufficient notice of four days to find a replacement, and that his grandmother had been diagnosed with only a week to live. (Doc. ¶ 29 at 16.) Plaintiff had not checked to see whether he could change his flight to Tuesday, April 15, 2008. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 53.) At the time, plaintiff's grandmother was in stable condition at St. John's Hospital in Springfield, Illinois. ( Id. at ¶ 52.)

Plaintiff left the John H that day, knowing that he did not have authorization to do so and that, as a result of his unauthorized absence, his employment with defendant would be terminated. ( Id. at ¶¶ 54, 55.) When plaintiff left, the John H was on the Mississippi River, 50 miles outside of the New Orleans port. ( Id. at ¶¶ 56, 57.) Plaintiff was taken to the shore on a boat, and then took a 50–mile cab ride to the airport in New Orleans. ( Id. at ¶¶ 58–59.)

Events from April 14, 2008 to May 18, 2008

On April 14, 2008, plaintiff boarded a 2:00 pm flight from New Orleans to Saint Louis, and arrived in Saint Louis late that evening. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 60; Doc. 29 at ¶ 19.) After arriving, plaintiff's...