Bryant v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services
781 F.3d 764
5th Cir.2015Background
- Tammy Bryant, a Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services employee, took two FMLA leaves: family-care leave (to care for her husband, Oct–Nov 2010) and self-care leave (for her own medical issues, including stroke and severe depression, spring–summer 2011).
- Supervisor Kim Littleton allegedly called Bryant several times during leave, reassigned her after return, issued disciplinary notices, and referred altered FMLA paperwork to the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG); OIG investigated possible forgery.
- Bryant altered her doctor’s FMLA return date before submitting it; the original form later was faxed to the employer, prompting an OIG inquiry and a refusal by Bryant to attend an office interview.
- Bryant was later terminated and sued the Department and Littleton under the FMLA, asserting interference (29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1)) and retaliation (29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2)) claims seeking damages and reinstatement.
- The district court denied summary judgment on sovereign and qualified immunity grounds; on interlocutory appeal, the Fifth Circuit considered sovereign immunity for state self-care claims and qualified immunity for Littleton on interference claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars self-care FMLA claims against the State (Department) | Bryant: reinstatement and other relief are permissible prospective relief despite Eleventh Amendment; sovereign immunity should not bar self-care claims. | Department: Congress abrogated sovereign immunity only for family-care FMLA claims (Hibbs); self-care claims remain barred by Eleventh Amendment. | Held: Sovereign immunity bars self-care claims against the Department; district court lacked jurisdiction over those claims. |
| Whether Littleton is entitled to qualified immunity for post-leave reassignment alleged as interference | Bryant: reassignment after leave was retaliatory/interfering with FMLA rights. | Littleton: reassignment occurred after Bryant exhausted family-care leave and did not deprive her of FMLA rights. | Held: Littleton entitled to qualified immunity on interference theory for reassignment—no clearly established violation. |
| Whether Littleton is liable for sending/triggering OIG investigator visit (interference) | Bryant: OIG visit to her home during leave interfered with FMLA rights. | Littleton: she did not control OIG; OIG independently decided to investigate after Bryant refused to attend a meeting. | Held: Littleton entitled to qualified immunity as she lacked control over OIG’s independent investigative decision. |
| Whether Littleton is liable for calling Bryant during FMLA leave (interference) | Bryant: repeated work-related calls while on family-care and self-care leave interfered with her FMLA rights. | Littleton: occasional calls (3–10 short calls) do not clearly violate any established right and no clear prejudice; qualified immunity applies. | Held: Littleton entitled to qualified immunity on the phone-call interference claim—no clearly established right to be free from occasional calls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nev. Dep’t of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003) (Congress abrogated state sovereign immunity for FMLA family‑care claims)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (narrow exception allowing suits for prospective relief against state officers)
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (1993) (collateral‑order jurisdiction to review denials of Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Nelson v. Univ. of Tex. at Dall., 535 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2008) (Eleventh Amendment bars FMLA self‑care claims against states)
- Cuellar v. Keppel Amfels, L.L.C., 731 F.3d 342 (5th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing FMLA interference and retaliation claims and prejudice requirement for interference)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014) (clearly established rights analysis for qualified immunity)