561 F. App'x 13
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Sheila Alford, a Providence Hospital employee since 1983, is a wheelchair user due to paraplegia and suffered additional injuries in 2009 and 2010 requiring medical leave.
- Alford exhausted her FMLA and D.C. FMLA leave by April 14, 2010; the hospital voluntarily granted an extra 60 days of unpaid leave and she returned on May 7, 2010.
- In December 2010 Alford had shoulder/neck injuries and doctors imposed weight restrictions preventing her from lifting her wheelchair into her car; she was out of work starting December 3, 2010.
- Doctors cleared her to work on December 14, 2010 and January 3, 2011 but maintained transport-related weight restrictions.
- Providence concluded on January 6, 2011 (effective Jan. 7) that operational needs required someone who could transport themselves and terminated Alford.
- Alford sued for violations of the FMLA and D.C. FMLA, retaliation, and intentional and negligent misrepresentation based on a nurse’s (LaToya Abbott) communications about her ability to get to work; the district court granted summary judgment for the hospital.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hospital interfered with or denied FMLA/D.C. FMLA rights | Alford contends hospital blocked her leave/return to work after injuries | Hospital notes Alford exhausted protected leave months earlier and was welcomed back in May 2010 | Court: No FMLA/D.C. FMLA violation — Alford had no remaining protected leave and was accommodated earlier |
| Whether termination was retaliatory for exercising FMLA rights | Alford argues termination was retaliation for prior leave | Hospital cites eight-month gap after leave and seven months of uninterrupted work; no evidence of retaliatory motive | Court: No retaliation — temporal gap and lack of other evidence foreclose inference |
| Whether Abbott’s conduct supports intentional misrepresentation claim | Alford alleges Abbott told her to stay home and failed to inform HR doctors’ clearances, intending to deceive decisionmakers | Hospital points to record that Abbott believed Alford still could not transport herself (no intent to deceive) | Court: Intentional misrepresentation fails — Alford conceded Abbott believed she could not transport herself, so no intent/knowledge element |
| Whether Abbott negligently misrepresented material facts to decisionmakers | Alford argues Abbott negligently omitted or failed to pass along doctors’ reports showing she could work | Hospital argues decision centered on transport ability, reports arrived after decision, and Abbott had no duty to disclose transportation alternatives | Court: Negligent misrepresentation fails — no causal reliance, reports arrived after decision, and no duty to disclose shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Talavera v. Shah, 638 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard — plaintiff must show an essential element)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Colburn v. Parker Hannifin/Nichols Portland Division, 429 F.3d 325 (1st Cir. 2005) (temporal gap undermines inference of FMLA retaliation)
- Taylor v. Solis, 571 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (temporal proximity insufficient for inference of retaliatory motive)
- In re Estate of McKenney, 953 A.2d 336 (D.C. 2008) (elements of intentional misrepresentation)
- Howard v. Riggs Nat’l Bank, 432 A.2d 701 (D.C. 1981) (framework for fraudulent misrepresentation)
- Redmond v. State Farm Ins. Co., 728 A.2d 1202 (D.C. 1999) (elements of negligent misrepresentation)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (employer liability when biased information comes from supervisory agents)