Easter v. Asurion Insurance Services, Inc.
3:13-cv-01372
M.D. Tenn.Mar 6, 2015Background
- Jennifer Easter worked as a customer service representative for Asurion from April 2011 until early 2013 and was subject to an 8% monthly attendance allowance and call‑in policy.
- Easter received multiple attendance disciplinary actions (ACAPs, a PIP, verbal warnings) for exceeding the 8% limit and failing to follow call‑in rules.
- Easter says her absences, tardiness, and frequent bathroom breaks were due to irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and chronic stomach problems and that she repeatedly informed supervisors and sought accommodations/FMLA leave.
- On March 4, 2013 Asurion management met with Easter regarding attendance; Asurion contends termination was decided then for attendance/PIP failures and later suspended pending an FMLA review; Easter contends she was terminated at that meeting.
- Easter applied for FMLA through Unum; initial denial for untimely certification was later reversed and intermittent FMLA was retroactively approved for late Feb–March 2013; Asurion reported Easter was terminated as of April 2, 2013.
- Easter sued under the FMLA (interference and retaliation), the ADA (failure to accommodate/failure to engage in the interactive process), and the Tennessee Disability Act (TDA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference (entitlement) — did Asurion fail to provide required FMLA notice/deny benefits? | Easter says she repeatedly informed supervisors of IBS/stomach issues and need for leave/accommodation, placing Asurion on inquiry notice; Asurion ignored requests and applied attendance policy against her. | Asurion contends it disciplined/terminated for excessive absenteeism and PIP failure, not for seeking FMLA; it followed Unum procedures. | Court: Denied summary judgment on interference — genuine factual disputes (notice, timing, credibility) require jury resolution. |
| FMLA retaliation — was termination caused by Easter’s invocation of FMLA? | Easter argues temporal proximity and that termination followed her invocation at March 4 meeting. | Asurion argues decision to fire was made before any FMLA invocation; also the specific February absences (sinusitis/sore throat) were not serious health conditions and certifications were untimely. | Court: Granted summary judgment for Asurion on retaliation — no causal link and plaintiff failed to show qualifying serious health condition/timely certification. |
| ADA — failure to accommodate/interactive process; was Easter disabled and denied accommodation? | Easter alleges IBS substantially limited major life activities at work, she requested accommodations (more breaks), and Asurion failed to engage in the interactive process. | Asurion contests proof of disability and ability to show that accommodation was required; emphasizes attendance-based, non‑discriminatory reasons for termination. | Court: Denied summary judgment on ADA claim — factual disputes about notice, accommodation requests, and whether Asurion engaged the interactive process preclude disposition. |
| Tennessee Disability Act (TDA) claim | Easter asserts TDA violation like ADA claim. | Asurion moved for summary judgment; argued same grounds as ADA. | Court: Granted summary judgment for Asurion — Easter abandoned response and TDA lacks a reasonable‑accommodation requirement distinct from ADA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryson v. Regis Corp., 498 F.3d 561 (6th Cir.) (distinguishes FMLA interference and retaliation theories)
- Walton v. Ford Motor Co., 424 F.3d 481 (6th Cir.) (employer must be reasonably apprised of probable FMLA‑qualifying reason)
- Wallace v. FedEx Corp., 764 F.3d 571 (6th Cir.) (failure to comply with notice provisions can constitute FMLA interference)
- Edgar v. JAC Prod., Inc., 443 F.3d 501 (6th Cir.) (McDonnell Douglas framework applies to FMLA claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct.) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir.) (interactive process and good‑faith duty to explore reasonable accommodations under ADA)
- Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir.) (failure to engage in the interactive process may itself violate the ADA)
- Demyanovich v. Cadon Plating & Coatings, L.L.C., 747 F.3d 419 (6th Cir.) (employer may not use FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions)