Barbara Hager v. Arkansas Dept. of Health, 735 F.3d 1009

Background

Barbara Hager, an employee of the Arkansas Department of Health, was terminated by her supervisor Dr. Namvar Zohoori after she refused to cancel a doctor’s appointment for cataract-related care.
Hager sued Zohoori (in his individual and official capacities) and the Department alleging Title VII, § 1983 (Equal Protection/Due Process/gender discrimination), ADEA, ADA/Rehabilitation Act, and FMLA claims (interference and retaliation).
Zohoori and the Department moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and, as to Zohoori, on qualified immunity grounds; the district court denied in part, allowing three claims against Zohoori (§ 1983 gender discrimination, FMLA interference, FMLA retaliation) and two against the Department (Title VII, Rehabilitation Act).
On interlocutory appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Hager’s complaint plausibly pleaded claims that defeat qualified immunity for Zohoori.
The court concluded Hager’s § 1983 gender-discrimination claim and her FMLA entitlement (interference) and FMLA discrimination (retaliation) claims were insufficiently pled and reversed the denial of dismissal as to Zohoori; it remanded to allow the district court to consider leave to amend.
The court declined pendent appellate jurisdiction over the Department’s appeal because its statutory claims are not coterminous with Zohoori’s qualified-immunity issues.

Issues

Issue	Hager’s Argument	Zohoori/Department’s Argument	Held
Whether § 1983 gender-discrimination claim was plausibly pleaded	Hager alleged she was a victim of gender discrimination and was discharged while similarly situated males were not	Allegations are conclusory and fail to plead facts showing similarly situated comparators or discriminatory acts	Reversed: § 1983 claim insufficiently pleaded; dismissal required
Whether FMLA entitlement (interference) claim was pleaded	Hager alleged she regularly saw a physician for cataracts, explained the need for the appointment, and could not cancel	Failure to allege timely notice (30 days or ‘‘as soon as practicable’’) or anticipated return date; notice requirement lacking	Reversed: entitlement claim insufficiently pleaded; dismissal required
Whether FMLA discrimination (retaliation) claim was pleaded	Hager alleged she was fired for attempting to take a doctor’s appointment to prevent a serious condition	Without adequate notice, she did not engage in protected FMLA activity; therefore no causal protection alleged	Reversed: discrimination claim insufficiently pleaded; dismissal required
Whether court may exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over Department’s statutory claims	Hager’s claims against the Department track the allegations against Zohoori	Department argues resolution of Zohoori’s claims necessarily resolves its exposure	Court declined jurisdiction: Department’s statutory claims are not coterminous and qualified immunity does not apply to the Department

Key Cases Cited

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (denial of qualified immunity is appealable to the extent it turns on an issue of law)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (defining scope of appellate jurisdiction over denial of qualified immunity at motion-to-dismiss stage)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (McDonnell Douglas is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading requirement)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity protects officials from suit unless violation of clearly established law is alleged)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may decide order of qualified-immunity prongs)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 2012) (categorization of FMLA claims into entitlement and discrimination types)
Sisk v. Picture People, Inc., 669 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2012) (FMLA entitlement elements and notice requirements)
Bradford v. Huckabee, 394 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing denial of qualified immunity at motion-to-dismiss)