Chase v. United States Postal Service
843 F.3d 553
1st Cir.2016Background
- Robert Chase, a USPS letter carrier, suffered a on-the-job shoulder injury in July 2010 and was placed on paid workers' compensation leave; he was also approved for concurrent FMLA leave.
- Supervisor Michael King knew of the injury, visited the accident scene, and believed Chase was on workers' compensation (IOD/OWCP); King testified he did not receive or see the mailed FMLA designation notice.
- While on leave, Chase was arrested on drug charges; King pushed for discipline after learning of the arrest.
- USPS issued a Notice of Removal while Chase remained on medical leave; after arbitration found that Chase possessed illegal drugs, Chase was terminated on September 30, 2011.
- Chase sued for FMLA interference and retaliation; after a bench trial the district court found King lacked knowledge that Chase had invoked FMLA protection and entered judgment for defendants; the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether King had the requisite knowledge that Chase invoked FMLA protection such that termination could be retaliation under the FMLA | Chase: King knew of the injury and that FMLA covers medically necessary leave, so King must have known Chase was on FMLA leave | King/USPS: King reasonably believed Chase was on workers' compensation paid leave and did not know (and had no reason to know) Chase invoked FMLA | Held: King reasonably believed Chase was not on FMLA leave; lack of decisionmaker knowledge defeats FMLA retaliation claim |
| Whether USPS’s institutional or corporate knowledge of FMLA designation can substitute for the decisionmaker’s lack of knowledge | Chase: USPS notice to the organization binds King; corporate knowledge should be imputed to decisionmaker | USPS: Precedent requires the decisionmaker who took the adverse action to have known of the protected activity; general knowledge does not substitute | Held: Corporate/general knowledge does not overcome the requirement that the decisionmaker knew or should have known of protected activity |
| Causation standard for FMLA retaliation claims (negative-factor vs. but-for) | Chase: DOL "negative factor" regulation applies and was met here | USPS: Court need not resolve standard because plaintiff fails even under the lenient DOL test | Held: Court assumes DOL standard may apply but affirms on knowledge grounds; does not decide Nassar's impact |
| Whether King’s hostility toward Chase’s leave (workers’ compensation) can establish FMLA retaliation | Chase: King's anti-leave comments show animus and causal connection to termination | USPS: King’s animus targeted workers’ compensation, not FMLA-protected leave; absent knowledge of FMLA, animus toward WC leave insufficient | Held: Animus toward workers’ compensation leave does not prove FMLA retaliation where decisionmaker lacked knowledge of FMLA leave |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodgens v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151 (1st Cir.) (describing FMLA retaliation elements and broad remedial purpose of FMLA)
- Ameen v. Amphenol Printed Circuits, Inc., 777 F.3d 63 (1st Cir.) (decisionmaker knowledge required for retaliation liability)
- Medina–Rivera v. MVM, Inc., 713 F.3d 132 (1st Cir.) (employer must have been aware of protected activity to motivate retaliation)
- Pomales v. Celulares Telefónica, Inc., 447 F.3d 79 (1st Cir.) (proof required that decisionmaker knew of protected conduct)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S.) (Supreme Court addressing but-for causation in retaliation claims; discussed but not applied to change FMLA standard)