542 F. App'x 370
5th Cir.2013Background
- Paris worked for Sanderson Farms and took two periods of FMLA leave in late 2009–2010; Sanderson Farms’ salaried FMLA policy allowed 13 weeks and required timely medical certifications and periodic status calls.
- After the second leave, Paris submitted intermittent certifications from her treating physician (Salinas) and a March gastroenterologist visit; Sanderson Farms approved a discretionary extension to March 18 but required a completed certification or return by April 9/10.
- Salinas faxed a certification on April 9 indicating an expected return date of that day, but Paris did not return to work; Sanderson Farms terminated her shortly thereafter for failing to return or submit a completed certification.
- Paris sued alleging FMLA discrimination/retaliation (including for being named as a witness in a coworker’s complaint), FMLA interference, and disability discrimination under the ADA and TCHRA.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Sanderson Farms on all claims; the Fifth Circuit (three-judge panel) affirmed, concluding Sanderson Farms gave a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (failure to return/submit certification) and Paris failed to raise a genuine issue of pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was FMLA-discriminatory/retaliatory (failure-to-return basis) | Paris contends termination was retaliation for taking FMLA leave and points to alleged timely messages, oddities in certifications, and alleged altered/early termination date | Sanderson Farms says it terminated Paris for failing to return or submit required certification per its policy; produced documentation of notice and approval process | Affirmed for Sanderson Farms; plaintiff failed to show pretext or genuine dispute that termination was because of FMLA leave |
| Whether termination was FMLA witness-retaliation (being named in coworker’s demand letter) | Paris asserts she was identified as a witness in Carroll’s demand letter and was terminated because of that | Sanderson Farms argued no nexus and maintained the same non-discriminatory reason applies | Court held Paris failed to show nexus or pretext; summary judgment proper on witness-retaliation claim |
| FMLA interference claim (procedural or substantive) | Paris alleged interference with FMLA rights | Sanderson Farms moved on all claims and argued no interference occurred | District court granted summary judgment on interference; Paris did not appeal that ruling (waived) |
| ADA and TCHRA claims (disability discrimination/retaliation) | Paris argued termination was discriminatory/retaliatory under ADA/TCHRA | Sanderson Farms again relied on the same legitimate reason and argued no pretextual motive | Affirmed: plaintiff produced no competent evidence of pretext; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (established burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and Rule 56 principles)
- Newman v. Guedry, 703 F.3d 757 (Fifth Circuit summary judgment review principles)
- Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., 398 F.3d 345 (internal policy violations may, in some circumstances, support inference of pretext)
- Grubb v. Sw. Airlines, [citation="296 F. App'x 383"] (failure to follow internal procedures generally insufficient to create fact issue on discriminatory motive)
- RSR Corp. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 612 F.3d 851 (conclusory assertions and speculation cannot defeat summary judgment)