Gary Waag v. Sotera Defense Solutions, Inc.
857 F.3d 179
4th Cir.2017Background
- Sotera acquired Potomac Fusion in 2011; Waag (Senior Director) became Sotera DFA Director of Operations and later was named NexGen Program Manager (PM) in Oct 2012.
- Waag suffered a severe hand injury on Oct 17, 2012, took medical leave (expected through Dec 2012), and used paid leave/short-term disability; he says he was not affirmatively told his FMLA rights, though Sotera had a leave policy in its employee handbook.
- While Waag was on leave, Sotera assigned Devin Edwards as NexGen PM; upon return Waag was reassigned to an Electronic Warfare Program (EWP) modeling & simulation business‑development role with the same salary and benefits.
- Federal sequestration significantly reduced available contract work (including NexGen); Sotera’s DFA division faced major revenue shortfalls and implemented layoffs in early 2013; Waag was laid off in February 2013.
- Waag sued under the FMLA claiming (1) failure to restore to his pre‑leave position, (2) failure to restore to an equivalent position, and (3) unlawful termination/interference and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for Sotera, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FMLA requires restoration to the exact pre‑leave position | Waag: employer must restore employee to the same pre‑leave position if it still exists | Sotera: FMLA permits restoration to either the same position or an equivalent position | Court: FMLA disjunctive; employer may restore to the same OR an equivalent position (statutory text controls) |
| Whether post‑leave EWP job was an "equivalent position" | Waag: EWP differed in duties, status, and work pipeline; not equivalent | Sotera: salary, benefits, title, supervisor, worksite, and core duties (business development) were equivalent | Court: No genuine dispute; tangible aspects were substantially similar; differences were de minimis; position was equivalent |
| Whether reinstatement was a sham and termination was improper interference | Waag: post‑leave job was a make‑work/sham slated for elimination so reinstatement failed statutory equivalency | Sotera: EWP role was real (worked on EWPMT bid); layoffs due to financial crisis would have occurred regardless | Court: Record shows EWP was genuine (real bid, other managers involved); no evidence of sham; interference claim fails |
| Whether termination was unlawful retaliation under FMLA | Waag: temporal proximity (termination ~6 weeks after return) shows causation; other facts indicate pretext | Sotera: legitimate nondiscriminatory reason — RIF due to sequestration and DFA underperformance | Court: Even if prima facie case established by timing, Sotera produced non‑retaliatory RIF evidence; Waag failed to show pretext; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination/retaliation cases)
- Yashenko v. Harrah's NC Casino Co., 446 F.3d 541 (distinguishing FMLA "entitlement"/interference claims from proscriptive retaliation claims)
- Laing v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 703 F.3d 713 (definition of "equivalent position" under FMLA)
- Sharif v. United Airlines, Inc., 841 F.3d 199 (elements and proof required for FMLA retaliation claim)
- Price v. Thompson, 380 F.3d 209 (temporal proximity can support causation for prima facie case)
- Vannoy v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond, 827 F.3d 296 (applying McDonnell Douglas framework to FMLA retaliation)