Donnelly v. Greenburgh Central School District No. 7
691 F.3d 134
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Donnelly, a high school English teacher, challenged a district tenure denial as retaliation for FMLA leave.
- The district argued Donnelly was not FMLA-eligible because hours worked in the prior year fell 3 hours short under the CBA calculation.
- Donnelly asserted he worked more hours than the CBA indicates; tensions centered on whether home/after-hours work counts under FLSA/Portal-to-Portal rules.
- The magistrate judge and district court relied on Zahorik v. Cornell Univ. to require a university-like tenure standard, which Donnelly argued was inapplicable to high schools.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit held that (a) FMLA eligibility was a fact issue for trial, (b) Zahorik does not apply to high school tenure, and (c) there is sufficient evidence of retaliation to survive summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA eligibility based on hours worked | Donnelly worked enough hours beyond the CBA to meet 1,250 hours | Donnelly did not meet the 1,250-hour threshold under the CBA-derived calculation | Genuine issue of material fact about hours worked; not conclusive for eligibility |
| Applicability of Zahorik to high school tenure | Zahorik is inapplicable to public high schools | Zahorik governs university tenure decisions | Zahorik does not apply to high school tenure decisions; not dispositive at summary judgment |
| Evidence of FMLA retaliation supporting trial | Evidence links protected leave to adverse tenure decision | Evidence insufficient to show retaliation or causal link | Sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on retaliation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Zahorik v. Cornell Univ., 729 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984) (tenure review standards tailored to university context; high bar for admission of non-qualifying candidates)
- Staunch v. Cont’l Airlines Inc., 511 F.3d 625 (6th Cir. 2008) (standard for hours worked under FMLA; employer must show non-qualifying hours when compensation agreement not accurate reflection of hours)
- Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Assocs., P.C., 274 F.3d 706 (2d Cir. 2001) (burden-shifting framework for hours worked under FLSA/FMLA context)
- Gorman v. Consol. Edison Co., 488 F.3d 586 (2d Cir. 2007) (Portal-to-Portal Act clarifications on compensable hours)
- Kuebel v. Black & Decker, Inc., 643 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 2011) (home-work tasks and compensable hours; limits of home-related work)
- Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (temporal proximity in retaliation cases; timing as evidence of causality)
- Mutchler v. Dunlap Mem’l Hosp., 485 F.3d 854 (6th Cir. 2007) (admissible evidence for experts and burden on employer to show hours)
- Hayes v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corr., 84 F.3d 614 (2d Cir. 1996) (evidence-based evaluation of credibility in summary judgment context)
- Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2001) (minimal qualification burden in discrimination context)