Bonnie Hasenwinkel v. Mosaic
809 F.3d 427
8th Cir.2015Background
- Hasenwinkel, a registered nurse at Mosaic, took multiple FMLA leaves (continuous and intermittent) between 2009–2012 for surgeries, depression, and to care for her father.
- In May 2011 she was absent for two days for depression but did not request FMLA leave; supervisor ordered her back to work and she later received a negative informal evaluation and one "needs improvement" rating.
- She received formal corrective actions in 2011 (written warnings, a suspension for handling mold evidence without reporting, and a suspension later rescinded with backpay); she admits the underlying incidents occurred.
- After neck surgery in November 2011 she exhausted her initial FMLA entitlement (January 8, 2012), received an additional 12 weeks under a new accrual method, then exhausted leave again (April 2, 2012); Mosaic granted a further 90‑day medical leave and terminated her on July 2, 2012 when she remained unable to work.
- Hasenwinkel sued under the FMLA (interference/retaliation) and Iowa wrongful-discharge (public policy). The district court granted summary judgment to Mosaic; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Hasenwinkel's Argument | Mosaic's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mosaic denied FMLA leave on May 5, 2011 (interference) | May 5 absence was FMLA‑qualifying and Mosaic forced her to return and punished her | Mosaic contends no FMLA request was made and, in any event, Hasenwinkel exhausted FMLA benefits | Court: Even assuming notice, Hasenwinkel received all FMLA leave she was entitled to; no denial of benefits |
| Whether Mosaic discriminated/retaliated for taking FMLA leave (adverse actions) | Negative evaluations, suspension, ostracism and ultimately termination were motivated by FMLA use | Actions were justified by performance issues and incapacity to work after exhausting leave | Court: No submissible FMLA discrimination claim—termination lawful after exhaustion; other acts not actionable |
| Whether the unpaid suspension (later backpaid) is an actionable adverse action under FMLA | Suspension deterred FMLA use and was retaliatory | Even if deterrent, FMLA requires actual monetary loss; backpay made plaintiff whole | Court: No recoverable FMLA claim—no evidence of actual monetary loss caused by suspension |
| Whether Iowa wrongful‑discharge claim (public policy) survives | Discharge violated public policy embodied by FMLA | FMLA provides the policy and remedy; plaintiff failed to prove FMLA violation | Court: Claim fails because plaintiff cannot show discharge violated FMLA; no separate wrongful‑discharge recovery here |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (defines materially adverse actions and distinguishes petty slights)
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002) (FMLA provides no relief absent prejudice/actual harm)
- Nev. Dep’t of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003) (FMLA remedies and relationship to state law remedies)
- McClure v. Career Systems Development Corp., 447 F.3d 1133 (8th Cir. 2006) (suspension without pay can be an adverse action in retaliation claims)
- Quinn v. St. Louis Cty., 653 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2011) (elements for FMLA interference claim: eligibility, notice, denial of benefits)
- Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 2012) (prima facie elements for FMLA discrimination)
- Wages v. Stuart Mgmt. Corp., 798 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 2015) (termination is an adverse employment action)
- Estrada v. Cypress Semiconductor (Minn.) Inc., 616 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2010) (employer may terminate after FMLA exhaustion if employee cannot perform essential functions)