Allen v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
22 F. Supp. 3d 722
E.D. Mich.2014Background
- Plaintiff C. Michael Allen began employment at Wal-Mart in May 2007 as a developmental store manager and later became Commerce Township store manager.
- Plaintiff received annual performance reviews labeling him a “Solid Performer” with areas needing development; he was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in April 2009 and faced a second PIP in September 2010 for ongoing issues.
- In October 2010, Bartell and HR issued verbal coaching due to continued deficiencies; Plaintiff sent an email requesting reassignment to another Wal-Mart role to address family stress.
- Plaintiff asked to be reassigned before taking FMLA leave; on November 2, 2010 Bartell forwarded Plaintiff’s reassignment request to regional HR; Plaintiff filed for FMLA leave on November 4, 2010 with a return date of January 25, 2011.
- Upon return from leave, Wal-Mart offered Plaintiff the assistant manager position at Hartland, Michigan; Plaintiff accepted but resigned from that position in April 2011.
- Plaintiff filed suit on January 22, 2013 claiming FMLA interference (failure to reinstate) and retaliation for exercising FMLA rights; defendant moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference claim viability | Allen alleges Wal-Mart failed to reinstate him to store manager after FMLA leave. | Wal-Mart had a legitimate reassignment reason pre-dating FMLA; Plaintiff requested reassignment before leave. | Granted: interference claim fails because employer proffered legitimate non-discriminatory justification. |
| Pretext for interference justification | Wal-Mart’s justification is pretextual to hide FMLA retaliation and discrimination. | Evidence shows Plaintiff requested reassignment pre-leave; no pretext established. | Granted: no genuine pretext shown; justification stands. |
| FMLA retaliation claim viability | Wal-Mart retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising FMLA rights via reassignment and timing of actions. | Reassignment was already in process before FMLA leave; timing does not establish causation. | Granted: retaliation claim fails; no causal connection established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walton v. Ford Motor Co., 424 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2005) (FMLA entitlement framework and reinstatement concepts)
- Donald v. Sybra, Inc., 667 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2012) (elements of FMLA interference; burden in prima facie case)
- Arban v. West Pub. Co., 345 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2003) (establishing interference/retaliation theories under FMLA)
- Edgar v. JAC Products, Inc., 443 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2006) (dual theories under FMLA: interference and retaliation)
- Grace v. USCAR, 521 F.3d 655 (6th Cir. 2008) (pretext framework for McDonnell Douglas in FMLA cases)
- Arban v. West Pub. Co., 345 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2003) (reiterates burden-shifting in FMLA cases)
- Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., 681 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 2012) (minimal prima facie burden for retaliation claims)
- Bryson v. Regis Corp., 498 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2007) (McDonnell Douglas framework in employment discrimination)