Fredrick Capps v. Mondelez Global LLC
847 F.3d 144
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Capps, a long‑time Mondelez (formerly Nabisco) mixer, suffered from avascular necrosis and was approved for intermittent FMLA leave repeatedly through 2013–2014.
- In February 2013 Capps took FMLA leave for hip/leg pain, then after drinking at a pub was arrested for DUI on February 14; he continued to take approved FMLA leave for days surrounding the arrest.
- Mondelez learned of Capps’ DUI conviction from a newspaper article in early 2014 and HR reviewed court dockets, noting overlap between court/arrest dates and Capps’ FMLA absences.
- Mondelez suspended Capps, asked for documentation, received letters from his doctor and attorney (some late or incomplete), and ultimately terminated him for violating the company’s Dishonest Acts Policy and alleged misuse of FMLA.
- Capps sued alleging FMLA interference, FMLA retaliation, ADA failure to accommodate, and state claims; the district court granted summary judgment to Mondelez, and the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA retaliation — did termination retaliate for taking FMLA leave? | Capps: termination was motivated by his use of protected FMLA leave. | Mondelez: termination resulted from honest belief Capps misused leave and was dishonest; nondiscriminatory. | Affirmed: employer’s honest belief that employee misused FMLA can defeat retaliation claim; no pretext shown. |
| FMLA interference — was Capps denied FMLA benefits? | Capps: termination deprived him of FMLA‑protected benefits. | Mondelez: Capps received approved leave and was reinstated each time; no benefits were withheld. | Affirmed: interference fails because plaintiff did not show denial of FMLA entitlements. |
| ADA failure to accommodate — did request for intermittent FMLA leave require ADA accommodation? | Capps: intermittent FMLA requests can be ADA accommodation requests and Mondelez failed to accommodate. | Mondelez: FMLA requests alone do not automatically create an ADA violation; in any event Mondelez granted the leave requested. | Affirmed: even assuming FMLA request could be ADA accommodation, Mondelez provided the intermittent leave and made a good‑faith effort; no failure to accommodate. |
| Standard for employer justification — must employer’s belief be reasonable and supported by particularized facts? | Capps: employer’s belief was mistaken and possibly unreasonable. | Mondelez: honest belief alone suffices; courts should not sit as super‑personnel review. | Held: Third Circuit follows Seventh/Eighth approach — an honest belief by employer defeats claim; need not meet Sixth Circuit’s “particularized facts” requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Gilhuly, 755 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2014) (elements of FMLA interference and retaliation claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (pretext and proving discriminatory intent)
- Kariotis v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 131 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 1997) (honest belief defense defeats discrimination claims)
- Scruggs v. Carrier Corp., 688 F.3d 821 (7th Cir. 2012) (employer’s honest suspicion of FMLA misuse defeats retaliation claim)
- Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 2012) (same; honest belief rule and pretext evidence)
- Medley v. Polk Cty., 260 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2001) (honest belief instruction defeats FMLA retaliation claim)