Gloria Marshall v. Rawlings Co.
854 F.3d 368
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Gloria Marshall, a Rawlings Company employee, took FMLA leave for mental-health conditions (depression, anxiety, PTSD), returned to work, was demoted (Sept 2012) and later terminated (Sept 2013).
- Marshall alleges FMLA interference, FMLA retaliation, ADA retaliation/disability discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; Rawlings moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- Key disputed facts: (1) whether Marshall’s performance justified demotion/termination; (2) whether supervisors Jeff Bradshaw and Mike Eisner harbored animus related to FMLA use or disability; and (3) whether intermediate/ultimate decisionmakers (Laura Plumley, George Rawlings) simply adopted biased recommendations (cat’s paw) or conducted independent investigations.
- Procedural posture: District court granted summary judgment for Rawlings on all claims; Sixth Circuit affirmed in part (FMLA interference, IIED), reversed in part (FMLA retaliation and ADA retaliation/discrimination), and remanded those claims for trial.
- Court held there were genuine disputes of material fact as to causation and pretext for FMLA retaliation and ADA claims, and that the cat’s paw theory applies to FMLA retaliation; no FMLA interference because Marshall received the leave and reinstatement she sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA retaliation (demotion & termination) | Marshall: taking FMLA leave motivated biased supervisors (Bradshaw, Eisner) who influenced higher-ups to demote/fire her (cat’s paw). | Rawlings: adverse actions based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (poor performance; false harassment claim). | Reversed summary judgment; claim survives due to genuine factual disputes and cat’s paw theory applies. |
| ADA retaliation/disability discrimination | Marshall: suffered adverse actions because of mental-health disability; same cat’s paw influence alleged. | Rawlings: actions due to performance and legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons. | Reversed summary judgment; genuine disputes of fact preclude disposition. |
| FMLA interference | Marshall: employer interfered with FMLA rights. | Rawlings: Marshall received all requested FMLA leave and reinstatement; standards prorated. | Affirmed summary judgment for Rawlings; no interference (leave and reinstatement provided). |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (Kentucky law) | Marshall: supervisors’ comments and conduct caused severe emotional distress. | Rawlings: workplace remarks and discipline not extreme/outrageous enough for tort. | Affirmed summary judgment for Rawlings; conduct not sufficiently outrageous under Kentucky law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (cat’s paw / proximate-cause principles for subordinate bias causing adverse action)
- Arban v. West Publ’g Corp., 345 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2003) (FMLA prohibits using leave as negative factor in employment actions)
- Edgar v. JAC Prods., Inc., 443 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2006) (McDonnell Douglas framework applied to FMLA retaliation)
- Demyanovich v. Cadon Plating & Coatings, L.L.C., 747 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 2014) (ADA discrimination and McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting)
- Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., LLC, 681 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 2012) (FMLA interference explained)
- Majewski v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 274 F.3d 1106 (6th Cir. 2001) (honest-belief rule in employer’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason analysis)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)