140 F. Supp. 3d 698
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Kathryn Deka, former on‑site director for Countryside (employer providing health and LTD benefits), alleged termination on March 30, 2012 after nearly five years of service.
- Deka suffers from multiple sclerosis, requested intermittent FMLA leave in Feb. 2012; her physician completed the FMLA paperwork and Countryside approved intermittent leave on March 1, 2012.
- Between Feb.–Mar. 2012, multiple managers repeatedly made disparaging comments about FMLA leave and the cost of covering employees with serious illnesses.
- Deka was terminated March 30, 2012 before using any intermittent FMLA leave; her health insurance was allegedly cancelled Feb. 28, 2012. She was later replaced by a male employee.
- Deka filed a First Amended Complaint (July 2015) asserting six counts: FMLA interference and retaliation; ERISA interference; ADA discrimination and interference (reasonable accommodation); and Title VII sex discrimination. Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and as time‑barred for FMLA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA statute of limitations (2 v. 3 years / willfulness) | Deka alleges willful violation, so 3‑year limit applies; complaint filed within 3 years of termination | Claims untimely under 2‑year limitation | Court: Willfulness sufficiently pleaded; 3‑year statute plausibly applies — FMLA claims not time‑barred |
| FMLA interference | Deka gave sufficient notice and was entitled to intermittent leave; termination denied FMLA benefits | Argues Deka never requested actual leave dates so no FMLA protection | Court: Notice and request for foreseeable intermittent leave are protected; interference claim plausibly pleaded |
| FMLA retaliation | Termination closely followed approval request and contemporaneous disparaging comments about FMLA | Employer denies causal link / sufficiency of pleading | Court: Timing and circumstantial comments support plausible causal inference; retaliation claim survives |
| ERISA §510 interference | Deka alleges employer intended to prevent her from obtaining plan benefits (insurance/LTD) and made cost‑related comments; termination shortly after | Employer contends insufficient facts to show intent to interfere with benefits | Court: Allegations plausibly show intent/motivation to frustrate benefits; ERISA interference claim survives |
| ADA discrimination (failure to accommodate) | Deka is a qualified individual with MS, employer knew, failed to accommodate by terminating before leave use | Employer claims insufficient factual showing of discrimination/failed accommodation | Court: Pleading alleges disability, notice, and failure to accommodate; ADA discrimination claim survives |
| ADA interference (coerce/intimidate/interfere) | Termination after accommodation request plus managers’ comments and conduct interfered with ADA rights | Employer challenges sufficiency of interference allegation | Court: Complaint gives fair notice and factual basis for interference claim; survives |
| Title VII sex discrimination | Deka alleges replacement by male, employer stated desire to hire males and preferential treatment of male employee | Employer argues pleading insufficient to state sex‑based adverse action | Court: Pleading meets Title VII notice pleading standard; sex discrimination claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (apply plausibility standard; reasonable inferences required)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988) (willfulness under FLSA — knowledge or reckless disregard standard)
- Pagel v. TIN, Inc., 695 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2012) (elements of FMLA interference)
- Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2012) (pleading statute of limitations as affirmative defense; complaint must plead enough to show timeliness)
- Teamsters Local No. 705 v. Burlington N. Santa Fe, 741 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2014) (ERISA §510 prohibits discharge intended to interfere with attainment of benefits)