Cordova v. New Mexico
283 F. Supp. 3d 1028
D.N.M.2017Background
- Cordova, a UNMH employee with PTSD/OCD/depression, sought FMLA leave in Feb–Mar 2016 and submitted a medical certification stating his condition could periodically prevent him from working.
- On March 23, 2016, after experiencing a panic attack at work, Cordova requested to leave; supervisor Lopez initially indicated leave would be allowed as FMLA-related but then denied it (citing staffing), confronted Cordova, and allegedly exacerbated his symptoms.
- Cordova left to seek urgent mental health treatment; his girlfriend informed supervisors (including Duenas and manager Hilton) of his treatment and inability to work through March 28; supervisors failed to return calls promptly.
- UNMH sent a letter dated March 23 stating Cordova had voluntarily resigned; Cordova asserts he did not resign and that the resignation was fabricated to justify termination.
- Cordova sued UNMH and supervisors Lopez, Hilton, and Duenas for FMLA interference and retaliation, procedural due process (42 U.S.C. § 1983), breach of implied contract, wrongful termination, and retaliatory discharge; defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual public supervisors can be sued under FMLA | Supervisors who acted in employer's interest are individually liable; pleadings show supervisory control and interference | Individual public supervisors are not "employers" under FMLA; statute interpreted to limit individual liability in public sector | Court: Individual liability available under FMLA; rejects defendants' narrow reading and follows Modica/Haybarger line |
| FMLA interference (Count I) — adequacy of notice and adverse action | Cordova gave notice (medical cert., told Lopez; surrogate notice by girlfriend); denial of leave and termination interfered | Defendants say notice inadequate and leave denial due to staffing; Cordova resigned voluntarily | Court: Allegations suffice to show notice, adverse action, and interference; claim survives |
| FMLA retaliation (Counts II–III) — prima facie causation and pretext | Temporal proximity and conduct (denial, confrontation, fabricated resignation, failure to return calls) show causation and pretext | Defendants say Cordova left without permission and voluntarily resigned, so no retaliation | Court: Prima facie case and pretext adequately pleaded; retaliation claims survive |
| Procedural due process (Count IV) — deprivation of property interest without process | Cordova had protected property interest (for-cause discipline) and received no pre-termination process or hearing | Defendants treat separation as resignation or assert just cause; claim fails or is barred by qualified immunity | Court: Complaint plausibly alleges a protected interest and lack of process; due process claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30 (U.S. 2012) (states immune from FMLA suits for employees’ self-care leave)
- Cornforth v. University of Oklahoma Bd. of Regents, 263 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2001) (FMLA damages claim against state officer in individual capacity not barred by Eleventh Amendment)
- Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation & Parole, 667 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2012) (FMLA permits individual liability for persons acting in employer’s interest)
- Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 2006) (textual and regulatory analysis supports individual liability under FMLA for public-sector supervisors)
- Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 2011) (denial of qualifying FMLA leave and termination related to leave violates law; establishes clearly established right)
- Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (protected property interest in public employment requires pretermination notice and opportunity to respond)