Gordon v. United States Capitol Police
923 F. Supp. 2d 112
D.D.C.2013Background
- Gordon, a uniform police officer for the U.S. Capitol Police, sues alleging FMLA interference and retaliation.
- May 6, 2011, Gordon requested FMLA leave; 240 hours approved on May 20, 2011.
- July 20, 2011, Gordon’s police powers were revoked pending a fitness for duty exam (FFDE); she was reassigned to light duty.
- FFDE occurred; doctor found Gordon fit for duty and powers reinstated on July 26, 2011.
- October 18–20, 2011, Gordon sought FMLA leave to miss active shooter training; supervisor demanded a doctor’s note; leave granted after initial resistance.
- Plaintiff filed suit April 27, 2012, after mediation ended February 1, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff states an interference claim under the FMLA | Gordon alleges actions surrounding FFDE, overtime denial, and medical demands interfered with FMLA rights. | Defendant contends no denial of FMLA benefits occurred; leave requests were granted. | Interference claim dismissed; no denial of FMLA benefits shown. |
| Whether plaintiff states a retaliation claim under the FMLA | Gordon argues defendant retaliated for exercising FMLA rights. | Actions taken (FFDE, overtime denial, medical demands, conference delay) are legitimate and not retaliatory. | Retaliation claim dismissed; actions found non-retaliatory and supported by legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quinn v. St. Louis County, 653 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2011) (interference requires denial or discouragement of FMLA benefits; denial not shown here)
- Wisbey v. City of Lincoln, 612 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2010) (discouragement alone insufficient without denial of entitlements)
- Franklin v. Potter, 600 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2009) (FFDE with no humiliation or harm may not constitute adverse action)
- Hunter v. D.C. Child and Family Servs. Agency, 710 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D.D.C. 2010) (discovery may reveal harm; court noted potential for injury could exist)
- Brungart v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 231 F.3d 791 (11th Cir. 2000) (causal link may be shown by temporal proximity in retaliation claims)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U.S. 53 (S. Ct. 2006) (contextual standard for what constitutes an adverse action in retaliation claims)