Brown v. Diversified Distribution Systems, LLC
801 F.3d 901
8th Cir.2015Background
- Jessica Brown worked at Diversified as a backup account executive, was promoted to account executive in 2009, struggled in that role, then took 12 weeks of FMLA leave in 2010 for cancer treatment and later maternity/FMLA leave in 2012.
- Before her 2012 leave, supervisors Kostecky and HR director Pirkl discussed reassigning Brown back to a restructured backup role; the company later restructured that backup role to include significant responsibilities and equal pay.
- Brown informed Diversified of a high‑risk pregnancy and arranged to work from home rather than take FMLA leave until June 2012; she returned from leave in September 2012 and was told of the reassignment (which she viewed as a demotion).
- Brown complained to HR on October 4, 2012 about the reassignment and her FMLA rights; she was terminated five days later on October 9, 2012.
- Brown sued under the FMLA for (1) entitlement (failure to restore to equivalent position), (2) discrimination (demotion for taking FMLA), and (3) retaliation (termination after complaining), and asserted two Minnesota statutory claims under Minn. Stat. §§ 181.961 (personnel file) and 181.933 (truthful reason for termination).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Diversified on all claims; the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement under FMLA: restoration to equivalent position | Brown: reassignment to backup upon return was not equivalent and violated §2614(a)(1) | Diversified: no FMLA interference because Brown was allowed leave; reassignment was planned before leave | Reversed: triable entitlement claim; summary judgment erroneous (employee need only show denial of equivalent position) |
| Discrimination under FMLA: demotion for taking leave | Brown: demotion was adverse action caused by taking FMLA leave | Diversified: transfer was contemplated before Brown requested leave (no causal link) | Affirmed: no prima facie discrimination; evidence shows transfer was contemplated pre‑leave |
| Retaliation under FMLA: termination after HR complaint | Brown: fired five days after complaining to HR about FMLA violation — temporal proximity and factual disputes show pretext | Diversified: legitimate reason — payroll cuts after loss of client; terminated underperformers | Reversed: genuine disputes of material fact (timing, credibility, and inconsistent explanations) preclude summary judgment on retaliation |
| Minn. Stat. § 181.961 (personnel file) | Brown: employer failed to provide file within seven days | Diversified: file was ultimately produced; Brown shows no actual damages from delay | Affirmed: no evidence of noncompliance or damages; summary judgment proper |
| Minn. Stat. § 181.933 (truthful reason for termination) | Brown: termination letter gave pretextual reason; statutory right to truthful reason supports claim | Diversified: Brown didn’t plead underlying §181.932 whistleblower claim; thus no §181.933 liability | Reversed: court holds §181.933 claim survives because the same wrongful act supports a §181.932 theory and factual disputes on truthful reason remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 2012) (distinguishes entitlement, discrimination, and retaliation FMLA claims)
- Walker v. Trinity Marine Products, Inc., 721 F.3d 542 (8th Cir. 2013) (restoration to same or substantially equivalent position required after FMLA leave)
- Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (employer proceeding on preexisting plans negates causation inference)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (methods to prove pretext in employment cases)
- Wallace v. DTG Operations, Inc., 442 F.3d 1112 (8th Cir. 2006) (temporal proximity can support inference of retaliation when viewed with other record evidence)
- Wierman v. Casey’s Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (McDonnell Douglas framework applied to FMLA retaliation)
- Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment standard)
- Stewart v. Rise, Inc., 791 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2015) (burden on plaintiff to rebut employer affidavits at summary judgment)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (credibility determinations as jury functions)
- Nichols v. Metro. Ctr. for Indep. Living, 50 F.3d 514 (8th Cir. 1995) (Minnesota §181.933 liability ties to injury under §181.932)