Everett Srouder v. Dana Light Axle Manufacturing
725 F.3d 608
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Matt White worked at Dana Light Axle (assembly), had a history of attendance problems and multiple FMLA leaves in 2009 for gout/back/foot pain and later abdominal/hernia issues.
- In late Sept. 2009 White submitted incomplete medical certification for FMLA absences; HR (Race) gave deadlines and scheduled meetings (Sept. 30) to cure deficiencies.
- At the Sept. 30 meeting White discussed stomach problems and impending surgery; parties dispute whether he clearly said "hernia" or that surgery was scheduled, but a form noted "may be hernia" and a surgeon appointment.
- After the meeting White was told no light-duty work was available and to obtain doctor clearance; he did not report to work Oct. 1, 2, 5, 6 and failed to call in as required by Dana’s strict call-in/no-fault attendance policy (two no-calls = voluntary quit).
- Dana sent a termination letter (Oct. 6) for failure to follow call-in rules; White had his surgery Oct. 7 and later submitted completed FMLA/short-term disability paperwork.
- White sued for FMLA interference; district court granted summary judgment for Dana. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying revised 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(d) that allows enforcement of employer notice rules absent "unusual circumstances."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer may enforce internal notice/call-in rules to deny or delay FMLA leave | White: employer cannot deny FMLA rights for failure to follow internal procedures when employee gave notice at meeting | Dana: updated regulation permits enforcement of usual notice/procedural requirements absent unusual circumstances | Court: Employer may enforce usual notice rules; White showed no unusual circumstances, so termination for failing to call in was justified |
| Whether Cavin precedent bars enforcement of stricter internal notice rules | White: Cavin prevents employers from using internal rules to undermine FMLA rights | Dana: Cavin was based on prior regulatory language that has been materially revised | Court: Cavin effectively abrogated by revised § 825.302(d); cannot be applied to override new regulation |
| Whether White provided sufficient notice at Sept. 30 meeting to excuse call-in failures | White: meeting and discussion of surgery constituted adequate notice | Dana: no waiver of call-in requirement and no evidence of communication relieving call-in duty | Court: Even if some notice given, no evidence of waiver or unusual circumstances; call-in requirement still enforceable |
| Whether unusual circumstances excused White's failure to comply with call-in policy | White: hernia/surgery created circumstances making compliance impossible or unnecessary | Dana: White could make calls (he later submitted paperwork) and offered no claim he was unable to call | Held: No evidence of unusual circumstances; compliance was required and failure justified termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Brenneman v. MedCentral Health Sys., 366 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2004) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Cavin v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 346 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2003) (previously held employers could not deny FMLA for failure to follow stricter internal procedures)
- Walton v. Ford Motor Co., 424 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2005) (elements of an FMLA interference claim)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment evidentiary standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment and "scintilla" standard)