Delbert Hudson v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 787 F.3d 861

Background

Hudson, a Tyson supervisor, missed work starting December 28, 2011 for medical reasons and submitted a doctor’s note covering 12/28–1/7; he intended to seek FMLA leave.
Hudson signed a leave application that showed the non‑FMLA box checked; he denies checking it and says someone else may have. Tyson granted non‑FMLA leave.
Tyson’s attendance policy required employees to call their direct supervisor to report unplanned absences; Hudson says he often texted his supervisor and had previously notified absences by text.
On January 9 HR investigated, concluded Hudson failed to give required notice for several days, recommended termination, and Tyson terminated him on January 10 for failing to notify the company of absences.
Hudson sued under the FMLA for (1) interference/entitlement (misclassification of leave and failure to restore) and (2) discrimination/retaliation for taking FMLA leave; the district court granted summary judgment for Tyson. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement: Was Hudson denied an FMLA benefit by misclassification or failure to be restored after leave?	Hudson says his leave was FMLA‑qualifying, was misclassified as non‑FMLA, and he was not restored to his prior duties before termination.	Tyson says it granted leave and reinstated Hudson (or returned him to duties) and thus did not deny FMLA benefits.	Reversed summary judgment: triable issue exists whether Hudson was restored before termination and whether misclassification caused prejudice.
Notice/Protected Activity: Did Hudson give adequate notice to invoke FMLA protection?	Hudson asserts he provided notice (text to supervisor; doctor’s notes) and intended to apply for FMLA.	Tyson contends Hudson failed to give sufficient notice and failed to follow the call‑in policy (no phone call).	Issue of fact on notice remains; the court declined to resolve on alternative grounds and remanded for district court to address.
Discrimination: Was Hudson terminated because he exercised FMLA rights?	Hudson argues the temporal proximity, shifting explanations, inconsistent HR notes, and practice of allowing texts show pretext and causal link to FMLA use.	Tyson maintains a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason: violation of attendance/call‑in policy; argues honestly‑held belief about notice.	Reversed summary judgment: genuine dispute of material fact exists about whether employer’s reasons were pretextual and whether termination was FMLA‑motivated.
Employer’s shifting explanations and evidentiary contradictions: Do they permit an inference of pretext?	Hudson points to inconsistencies (originally “no notice,” later “wrong method of notice”), HR notes that contradict the asserted facts, and evidence of tolerated alternative notice methods.	Tyson argues any belief it held about Hudson’s noncompliance was honestly held and nondiscriminatory.	Court found the inconsistencies and record conflicts sufficient to raise a factual dispute for trial on pretext and causation.

Key Cases Cited

Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996 (8th Cir.) (distinguishing entitlement and discrimination claims under FMLA)
Stallings v. Hussmann Corp., 447 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir.) (burden shifting and showing pretext in FMLA discrimination claims)
Chappell v. Bilco Co., 675 F.3d 1110 (8th Cir.) (employer may discipline for violating attendance/call‑in policy even if leave is FMLA‑covered)
Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (summary judgment review requires viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Hite v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 446 F.3d 858 (8th Cir.) (temporal proximity and falsity of employer explanations can support inference of pretext)
Malloy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 756 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir.) (taking FMLA leave does not insulate employee from discipline for non‑FMLA reasons)
Clinkscale v. St. Therese of New Hope, 701 F.3d 825 (8th Cir.) (adequacy of notice to trigger FMLA is a jury question)
Hager v. Ark. Dep’t of Health, 735 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir.) (employee must give employer notice of need for leave and anticipated return)