431 F. App'x 345
5th Cir.2011Background
- Baham was hired by McLane in 2006, reporting to Restrepo.
- In Dec 2007 Baham requested FMLA leave for a period in 2008 due to his daughter’s serious injury in Florida.
- He submitted FMLA paperwork; a benefits administrator found it incomplete and Baham supplied additional records.
- Baham remained in Miami with his daughter through April 2008 and returned to Texas on April 12, 2008 without reporting back to work until May 5, 2008.
- McLane believed Baham intended to resign when he left the premises on May 5 and terminated him two days later.
- Baham alleged FMLA retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for McLane, ruling he failed to show he was needed to care for his daughter and thus lacked protected activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Baham protected by the FMLA for the period in question? | Baham | McLane | Baham not protected; not caring in Texas |
| Did Baham suffer an adverse employment action? | Baham | McLane | Yes, but no protected-activity link established |
| Was there a causal link between FMLA activity and termination? | Baham | McLane | No causal link established; not engaged in protected activity |
| Did Baham provide care for his daughter during the two-week Texas period? | Baham | McLane | No, remained out of state; no ongoing care |
| Is equitable estoppel applicable based on McLane’s assurances? | Baham | McLane | Not applicable; assurances did not extend FMLA protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Tellis v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 414 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2005) (some actual care required; proximity matters)
- Hunt v. Rapides Healthcare Sys., LLC, 277 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2001) (prima facie FMLA retaliation framework)
- Marchisheck v. San Mateo Cnty., 199 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 1999) (caring involves ongoing treatment proximity)
- Minard v. ITC Deltacom Commc’ns, Inc., 447 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2006) (equitable estoppel in FMLA context)
- Tellis v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. (duplicate entry), 414 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2005) (see above)