Demyanovich v. Cadon Plating & Coatings, L.L.C.
747 F.3d 419
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Demyanovich, an employee for Cadon Plating & Coatings, was terminated after requesting FMLA leave for CHF treatment.
- He had worked for Cadon for over twenty years, eventually becoming an area leader before the 2010 events.
- Cadon’s health-related leave requests began in 1999 and continued with periodic FMLA and short-term disability leaves.
- Demyanovich sought lighter duty options due to health limitations, which Cadon reportedly denied.
- Cadon argued he could not be restored to work after leave and cited Cadon’s attendance policy as a justification for termination.
- Demyanovich contends Cadon is an integrated employer with MNP, potentially bringing FMLA coverage, and argues he remained capable of some machine-operator work at the time of termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cadon is a covered employer under the FMLA. | Demyanovich claims Cadon and MNP are integrated and thus Cadon is covered. | Cadon asserts it employed fewer than fifty, not meeting FMLA coverage. | Genuine dispute as to integration; Cadon may be an integrated employer with MNP. |
| Whether Demyanovich was entitled to FMLA benefits at termination. | Demyanovich argues he may have been able to return to some form of work after leave. | Cadon asserts he was permanently unable to work post-leave and thus not entitled to reinstatement. | There is a genuine dispute about entitlement to FMLA benefits; pretext inquiry possible. |
| Whether Cadon’s reasons for termination were pretextual in FMLA interference claim. | Reasons (attendance policy and permanent unfitness) were pretextual indicators of FMLA retaliation. | Reasons were legitimate, non-discriminatory justifications. | Evidence could show pretext; interference claim survives summary-judgment reversal. |
| Whether Demyanovich can prove FMLA retaliation under direct or indirect evidence. | Direct evidence shows supervisor called him a “liability” after FMLA request; proximity supports retaliation. | Justifications could be legitimate and not tied to FMLA request. | Both direct and indirect evidence support retaliation claim; summary judgment reversed. |
| Whether Demyanovich can prove disability discrimination under the ADA and PWDCRA. | Disability (CHF, diabetes) and limitation to perform essential functions show discrimination. | Termination based on attendance and presumed incapacity was nondiscriminatory. | Evidence supports disability discrimination; claims survive summary-judgment reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edgar v. JAC Prods., Inc., 443 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2006) (standard for evaluating FMLA interference and burden-shifting framework)
- Bryson v. Regis Corp., 498 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2007) (proximity in time as evidence of causal connection in retaliation)
- Donald v. Sybra, Inc., 667 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2012) (McDonnell Douglas framework for FMLA retaliation)
- DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2004) (direct evidence approach to discrimination)
- Cehrs v. Ne. Ohio Alzheimer’s Research Ctr., 155 F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 1998) (advising on when absence of return precludes FMLA benefit denial)
- Williams v. Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc., 224 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2000) (considerations on disability and work capacity post-claim)
- Daugherty v. Sajar Plastics, Inc., 544 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2008) (direct or indirect proof paths for FMLA retaliation)
- Swallows v. Barnes & Noble Book Stores, Inc., 128 F.3d 990 (6th Cir. 1997) (integrated employer considerations in FMLA)
- Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (U.S. 1999) (SS disability determinations not inherently inconsistent with ADA claims)