Brown v. ScriptPro, LLC
700 F.3d 1222
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Brown worked for ScriptPro as a Customer Service Operations analyst from March 2007 to November 21, 2008.
- He received a 2007–2008 performance review showing satisfactory quality and attendance but marginal planning/organization and work relationships.
- Written comments criticized excessive internet use and problematic personal boundaries; Brown disputed some points.
- In Sept. 2008, coworkers reported belligerent conduct toward customers and late/project issues; management noted concerns.
- Brown requested paid time off in Oct. 2008 for the birth of his child; there is dispute over permission to work from home.
- Brown was terminated on Nov. 21, 2008 for unresolved, previously discussed performance issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference claim viability | Brown entitled to FMLA leave; interference occurred; termination tied to leave request. | Employer would have terminated regardless of any FMLA request; reasons are unrelated to FMLA. | Summary judgment for ScriptPro; no genuine dispute on defense evidence. |
| FMLA retaliation claim viability | Termination shortly after FMLA-related discussions shows retaliatory motive. | No pretext; timing alone insufficient; reasons independent of protected activity. | Summary judgment for ScriptPro; no triable issue on pretext. |
| FLSA overtime entitlement | Brown worked about eighty hours from home; unpaid overtime should be awarded. | Brown did not record hours; employer records are accurate; failure to log defeats claim. | Summary judgment for ScriptPro; no proven amount of overtime due. |
Key Cases Cited
- Metzler v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 464 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2006) (Interference doctrine does not require showing employer intent)
- DeFreitas v. Horizon Inv. Mgmt. Corp., 577 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2010) (review of grounds for termination in summary judgment standard)
- Smith v. Diffee Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 298 F.3d 955 (10th Cir. 2002) (FMLA interference requires no McDonnell Douglas proof)
- Doebele v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 342 F.3d 1117 (10th Cir. 2003) (pretext not required for some retaliation analyses)
- Sanders v. Sw. Bell Tel., L.P., 544 F.3d 1101 (10th Cir. 2008) (evidence in discrimination cases; evaluation of employee disputes)
- Marx v. Schnuck Mkts., Inc., 76 F.3d 324 (10th Cir. 1996) (pretext analysis framework for retaliation claims)
- Sabourin v. Univ. of Utah, 676 F.3d 950 (10th Cir. 2012) (pretext evaluation; burden shifts in retaliation claims)
- Rojas v. Florida, 285 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2002) (different supervisors may apply standards; pretext not proven by evaluation variance)
- Harvill v. Westward Communications, LLC, 433 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 2005) (overtime record-keeping implications in FLSA cases)