88 F.4th 879
11th Cir.2023Background
- Doris Lapham, a long-term Walgreens employee, was terminated in April 2017, officially for insubordination and dishonesty.
- Lapham had repeatedly taken intermittent FMLA leave to care for her disabled son and claimed her 2017 termination resulted from her protected leave requests and workplace complaints.
- She claimed Walgreens interfered with her FMLA rights and retaliated in violation of both the FMLA and Florida Whistleblower Act (FWA).
- The district court granted summary judgment to Walgreens on all claims, later clarifying that "but-for" causation applies to both FMLA and FWA retaliation claims.
- Lapham appealed, arguing both the merits and the causation standard used by the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation standard for FMLA and FWA retaliation | Motivating-factor causation should apply | But-for causation is required | But-for causation applies to both claim types |
| Retaliation under FMLA and FWA | Termination was pretext for retaliation | Termination was for documented misconduct | No evidence but-for retaliation caused firing |
| FMLA Interference | Improper delay and denial of FMLA leave | Leave was denied due to termination which was justified | No actionable interference since proper cause for termination |
| Sufficiency of evidence for pretext/causation | Direct and circumstantial evidence show animus | Manager followed standard procedures | No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (but-for causation required for retaliation under Title VII)
- St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (burden-shifting analysis and pretext)
- Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (explains but-for causation)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (default standard of but-for causation in discrimination statutes)