Bradley v. Army Fleet Support, 1:13-cv-00308

Background

James Bradley, a Technical Inspector for Army Fleet Support (AFS) from 1998–2013, injured a finger March 10, 2013, underwent surgery March 12, and was given medical releases limiting duty and providing estimated return dates in March–April 2013.
Bradley notified HR (March 11) and supervisors (March 11, 13, 14) that he expected to be out several weeks and had a March 25 follow-up; he contends supervisors acknowledged and said his time was covered.
Bradley missed work March 20–22; a March 20 doctor’s note released him to sedentary duty and identified a return date; AFS treated his absences as unauthorized, changed leave coding, and terminated him March 25 for alleged job abandonment under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
The Union filed a grievance and withdrew it after a hearing. Bradley sued for FMLA interference (designation and termination) and FMLA retaliation.
AFS moved for summary judgment arguing Bradley failed to comply with the CBA call‑in/notice requirement (a non‑FMLA reason), and also raised arbitration/waiver defenses in reply; the court resolved evidentiary motions and considered whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AFS improperly failed to designate Bradley’s injury leave as FMLA leave	Bradley says his communications (HR and supervisors) gave sufficient notice to trigger FMLA designation	AFS contends Bradley’s release to sedentary duty did not show inability to perform essential job functions and Bradley didn’t provide sufficient info	Court granted summary judgment to AFS on a separate claim for improper designation (no prejudice shown), but found factual disputes about whether leave was FMLA‑qualifying relevant to other claims
Whether termination interfered with FMLA rights (termination while on FMLA‑qualifying leave)	Bradley says termination was effectively for taking FMLA leave	AFS says termination was for job abandonment—failure to comply with CBA call‑in rules, a reason unrelated to FMLA	Court denied summary judgment on interference‑via‑termination because factual disputes exist about (1) whether leave was FMLA‑qualifying and (2) whether the daily call‑in requirement applied
Whether Bradley violated CBA call‑in policy (grounds for termination)	Bradley presents evidence supervisors/HR were informed of multi‑week absence and that AFS sometimes waived daily calls	AFS insists policy required daily call‑ins for unforeseeable absences and Bradley failed to comply	Court found material factual disputes about application/waiver of the call‑in rule, precluding summary judgment
FMLA retaliation: whether termination was intentional retaliation and whether AFS’s reason was pretextual	Bradley points to temporal proximity, supervisors’ knowledge of his protected leave, comparator evidence, and alleged irregularities as evidence of pretext	AFS argues it honestly believed Bradley abandoned his job and that a mistaken belief is not pretext	Court denied summary judgment on retaliation, concluding sufficient evidence of pretext and causal link (including timing and disputed knowledge) to send to jury

Key Cases Cited

Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, 666 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir.) (FMLA interference standard)
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (Sup. Ct.) (prejudice required for relief on FMLA designation violations)
Gilliam v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 233 F.3d 969 (7th Cir.) (employer may enforce notice rules vis‑à‑vis FMLA absences)
Spraggins v. Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH, Inc., 401 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (M.D. Ala.) (notice-as‑practicable requirement consistent with FMLA)
Hurlbert v. St. Mary’s Health Care Sys., Inc., 439 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir.) (FMLA retaliation standard and analysis)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct.) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519 (11th Cir.) (pretext requiring weaknesses/inconsistencies in employer’s stated reasons)