816 F. Supp. 2d 556
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Cuff was a Regional Manager-United Express Operations at O'Hare from Oct 2006 to Jan 11, 2010, with employer identity contested.
- Defendants contend TSA alone employed Cuff; Cuff argues TSH/TSA/GoJet are joint or integrated employers under FMLA.
- Cuff's duties allegedly spanned all three entities; his business card and communications reference all three companies.
- In Dec 2009, Cuff sought FMLA leave for Crohn's disease and bipolar disorder; TSA denied leave due to not meeting 50-employee threshold within 75 miles.
- He was granted a two-week personal leave, then terminated after not returning to work; move to Wisconsin occurred shortly before termination.
- Defendants concede GoJet and TSA are related to TSH; Wigmore (TSH CFO) affidavit supports a shared-services and joint-employer picture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the defendants jointly/integrated employers under FMLA? | Cuff: all three entities share control and operate as a single employer. | TSH, TSA, GoJet are separate; only TSA employed Cuff, not a covered entity. | GoJet, TSA, and TSH are joint employers; covered under FMLA. |
| Was Cuff entitled to FMLA leave? | Cuff had a serious medical condition and certification supported entitlement. | Even with conditions, Cuff’s noncompliance and treatment questions could undermine entitlement. | Cuff entitled to FMLA leave. |
| Did Cuff take leave for its intended purpose? | Leave was sought for medical treatment and related issues. | Some leave usage and medical cooperation disputed; misuses could negate entitlement. | Denial of leave did not defeat entitlement; issues relate to damages, not liability. |
| Was Cuff prejudiced by the denial of leave? | Damages may flow from denial; moving and employment status affected expectations. | No prejudice proven; relocation complicates causation. | Damages questions require trial; prejudice not resolved on summary judgment. |
| Does the after-acquired evidence doctrine bar recovery? | Plaintiff seeks liability, not collateral estoppel; after-acquired evidence limits damages only. | Certain misconduct could have justified termination if known earlier. | After-acquired evidence does not bar liability here; damages may be limited later. |
Key Cases Cited
- Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903 (7th Cir. 2008) (FMLA entitlement requires covered employment; certification procedures discussable)
- Moldenhauer v. Tazewell Consolidated Communications Center, 536 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2008) (joint-employer factors are fact-specific; shared control indicators considered)
- Fischer v. Avanade, Inc., 519 F.3d 393 (7th Cir. 2008) (affidavits contradicting deposition testimony require explanation; credibility matters)
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2002) (recovery for FMLA interference limited to losses caused by the violation)