Charles v. Air Enterprises, LLC, 5:15-cv-01005

Plaintiff Gene Charles was Safety and Facility Manager at Air Enterprises and had previously taken or requested FMLA leave on multiple occasions; his October 2014 FMLA request was approved but he did not actually take the leave.
Air Enterprises experienced ongoing financial difficulties and conducted multiple reductions in force (RIFs) in late 2013, August 2014, December 2014, and January 2015; Charles was terminated in the January 2015 RIF.
At least three employees terminated across the December 2014–January 2015 rounds, including Charles, had previously used FMLA; many other FMLA users remained employed.
Management testimony explained the RIF decisions as cost-driven and skill-set based; Charles’s duties were redistributed to existing employees and no replacement hires were made.
Charles offered (1) hearsay statements suggesting he was not originally included in the RIF, and (2) an affidavit contradicting his earlier deposition about a supervisor’s comment regarding taking unscheduled FMLA leave. The affidavit contradicted his deposition testimony.
The district court granted summary judgment for Air Enterprises, finding Charles failed to show pretext or a causal link between his FMLA request and termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Charles can prove FMLA retaliation (causal link)	Charles contends termination was retaliation for his October 2014 FMLA request	Air Enterprises says termination was part of a legitimate, documented RIF due to economic necessity	Held for defendant: Charles failed to show causal connection or pretext
Whether plaintiff’s evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact	Relies on hearsay affidavit and affidavit contradicting earlier deposition to show pretext	Evidence is inadmissible hearsay and a sham affidavit cannot create a genuine dispute	Held for defendant: court discounts hearsay and sham affidavit; no genuine dispute
Admissibility of affidavits contradicting prior sworn testimony	Affidavit asserts supervisor discouraged unscheduled leave	Defendant relies on deposition testimony showing supervisor said leave would be "no problem"	Held for defendant: Sixth Circuit law bars creating an issue by contradicting prior deposition testimony (sham affidavit rule)
Whether other employees’ FMLA use supports inference of retaliation	Implies patterns or disparate treatment	Employer shows many employees used FMLA without adverse action and non-FMLA users were included in RIFs	Held for defendant: evidence shows consistent RIF application and no pattern of retaliation

Hoge v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 384 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 2004) (distinguishes FMLA interference and retaliation theories)
Arban v. West Publ’g Corp., 345 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2003) (elements required to prove FMLA discrimination/retaliation)
Killian v. Yorozu Automotive Tennessee, Inc., 454 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff bears burden to show employer’s stated reason is pretext for FMLA retaliation)
Reid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 790 F.2d 453 (6th Cir. 1986) (affidavit contradicting prior deposition testimony cannot create genuine issue)
Jacklyn v. Schering-Plough Healthcare Prod. Sales Corp., 176 F.3d 921 (6th Cir. 1999) (inadmissible hearsay cannot defeat summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and requirement that nonmoving party produce more than a scintilla of evidence)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (moving party entitled to summary judgment where nonmoving party fails to make sufficient showing on an essential element)