Aquart v. Ascension Health Information Services, 1:09-cv-00804

Aquart sued Ascension Health Information Services under FMLA and ADA in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
Ascension moved for summary judgment on both claims; Aquart moved for partial summary judgment on FMLA eligibility.
Aquart, who has chronic migraines, began employment August 6, 2007, and was terminated July 15, 2008.
FMLA eligibility hinged on whether Aquart was employed for 12 months; the court held she was not eligible because her employment commenced after August 6, 2007 if based on actual work.
Ascension accommodated Aquart’s migraines with leave options and ergonomic accommodations; Aquart’s performance declined, leading to a 60-day improvement plan and eventual termination.
The court concluded Aquart did not have a valid FMLA claim due to ineligibility and could not sustain ADA claims for failure to accommodate or discrimination based on disability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Aquart an eligible FMLA employee?	Aquart was employed when she accepted the offer and moved to Austin.	Employment began when she started work in August 2007; thus she lacked 12 months.	Aquart not eligible; not an eligible employee under FMLA.
Did Ascension interfere with or deny Aquart's FMLA rights?	Aquart requested and was denied FMLA leave after reporting migraines.	FMLA not triggered due to ineligibility; no interference proved.	No FMLA interference given ineligibility.
Did Aquart fail to establish a valid ADA failure-to-accommodate claim?	Ascension ignored her migraine-related needs and failed to engage in an interactive process.	Ascension engaged with Aquart, provided accommodations, and never denied leave requests.	No failure-to-accommodate; no denial of accommodations found.
Did Ascension terminate Aquart due to disability (ADA discrimination)?	Termination was pretextual, tied to migraines and FMLA inquiries.	Termination based on poor performance and not disability; evidence supports legitimate reason.	Terminated for performance; not ADA-discriminatory.

Walling v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 148 F.2d 768 (5th Cir. 1945) (interprets 'suffer or permit to work' in FMLA context)
Plumley v. S. Container, Inc., 303 F.3d 364 (1st Cir. 2002) (employment definition context; pre-employment period considerations)
Elsensohn v. St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office, 530 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2008) (limits on expanding FMLA definitions; employment analysis)
Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (U.S. 2002) (substantially limits major life activity standard)
Rodriguez v. Conagra Grocery Prods. Co., 436 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2006) (ADA prima facie framework for discrimination claims)
DeCorte v. Jordan, 497 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2007) (burden-shifting framework for ADA discrimination defense)
Rogers v. International Marine Terminals, Inc., 87 F.3d 755 (5th Cir. 1996) (attendance and accommodation considerations in employment)
Dupre v. Charter Behavioral Health Sys., 242 F.3d 610 (5th Cir. 2001) (defining disability and major life activities)