DePaula v. Easter Seals El Mirador
859 F.3d 957
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- John DePaula worked 22 years for Easter Seals El Mirador (ESEM); in 2012 he was moved from a clinical deputy director role to Risk Manager and shortly thereafter terminated.
- ESEM cited two reasons for termination: (1) financial distress and cost-containment leading to elimination of positions, and (2) longstanding performance deficiencies documented by the CEO.
- DePaula took 12 weeks of FMLA leave beginning March 30, 2012; there was a dispute about his return date but he was terminated while on or shortly after leave.
- Prior performance memoranda, an $8,000 deduction tied to a late report, and contemporaneous management affidavits/minutes supported ESEM’s stated reasons.
- DePaula sued asserting multiple claims (age discrimination under ADEA and NMHRA; association discrimination under ADA and NMHRA; NMHRA retaliation; FMLA retaliation and interference; and state-law claims). The district court granted summary judgment to ESEM on all claims; DePaula appealed several claims.
- The Tenth Circuit assumed (but did not decide) DePaula established prima facie cases for several claims and affirmed summary judgment because DePaula failed to show ESEM’s proffered reasons were pretextual and, for FMLA interference, that the termination was related to his leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination (ADEA & NMHRA) | DePaula contends termination was age-based and pretextual to cover discrimination | ESEM relied on financial restructuring and documented performance problems as legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons | Affirmed: DePaula failed to show ESEM’s reasons were pretextual |
| Association discrimination (ADA & NMHRA) | DePaula says termination related to his association (care for mother) and assistance to sick coworker | ESEM says termination based on finances and performance; disputes scope of NMHRA association protection | Affirmed: DePaula did not show pretext or a causal link; court assumed association claims but rejected them on lack of pretext/prima facie proof |
| FMLA retaliation | DePaula argues temporal proximity of leave and firing and alleged procedural deviations show retaliatory motive | ESEM argues termination was due to cost-cutting and performance; temporal proximity alone insufficient; FMLA policies allowed exemption for highly compensated/key employees | Affirmed: temporal proximity alone insufficient and other pretext arguments fail |
| FMLA interference | DePaula contends termination interfered with his FMLA rights | ESEM contends employee would have been terminated regardless due to financial cuts and performance issues | Affirmed: ESEM showed termination would have occurred irrespective of FMLA leave; no interference |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (burden of production and persuasion in McDonnell Douglas framework)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (plaintiff retains ultimate burden of persuasion)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (employer’s burden is one of production; credibility questions for pretext)
- Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. discussion of direct/indirect evidence and pretext)
- Brown v. ScriptPro, LLC, 700 F.3d 1222 (FMLA interference/retaliation analysis)
- Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987 (FMLA interference: termination valid if would have occurred regardless)
- Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220 (prima facie inquiry and inference of discrimination)
- Birch v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 812 F.3d 1238 (summary judgment standards; draw inferences for non-movant)