Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America
817 F.3d 415
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Cathleen Graziadio, a payroll administrator at the Culinary Institute of America (CIA), took FMLA leave in June 2012 to care for her son Vincent (newly diagnosed Type I diabetes) and shortly thereafter for her other son T.J. (broken leg).
- Graziadio provided a medical certification for Vincent and later an updated certification; CIA HR Director Shaynan Garrioch deemed the paperwork deficient and demanded new documentation before allowing Graziadio to return.
- Communications broke down: Garrioch refused to engage by email, insisted on an in‑person meeting (which never occurred), and directed others not to communicate with Graziadio; Graziadio retained counsel.
- CIA ultimately terminated Graziadio on September 11, 2012 for "abandoning" her job; Graziadio appealed unemployment benefits and later sued under the FMLA (interference and retaliation) and the ADA (associational discrimination).
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims; the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the ADA claim, vacated dismissal of the FMLA claims (and revived potential individual liability for Garrioch), and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual liability under FMLA (is Garrioch an "employer") | Garrioch exercised control over leave decisions and termination; thus she fits the FLSA-style "economic reality" test | Termination authority rested with VP Mignault; HR lacked hiring/firing and payroll control, so not an "employer" | Reversed dismissal as to Garrioch: factual disputes on control/supervision permit a jury to find she was an "employer" under the economic‑reality test |
| FMLA interference (leave for Vincent) | Sought intermittent leave after June 18; submitted timely/adequate certification; CIA withheld approval and treated absences as unauthorized | CIA contends no denial of leave because Graziadio returned June 18 and did not seek further protected leave | Reversed: triable issues whether Graziadio requested and was entitled to intermittent leave and whether CIA denied approval |
| FMLA interference (leave for T.J.) | Good‑faith attempt to comply; CIA's requests for paperwork were vague/misleading and HR's unresponsiveness excused remaining deficiencies | CIA says Graziadio failed to provide a valid medical certification and thus was not entitled to FMLA leave | Reversed: factual disputes about whether employer gave proper notice/request, whether plaintiff reasonably complied, and whether employer’s conduct excused noncompliance |
| FMLA retaliation (termination) | Termination was motivated by retaliation for exercising FMLA rights; employer explanations (paperwork deficiency, abandonment) are weak/inconsistent | Legitimate reasons: failure to provide required certifications and failure to contact supervisor (abandonment) | Reversed as to retaliation: plaintiff showed prima facie issues and sufficient evidence of pretext (timing, inconsistent explanations, HR conduct) to survive summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Haybarger v. Lawrence Cty. Adult Prob. & Parole, 667 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2012) (applying FLSA economic‑reality analysis to FMLA individual liability)
- Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1999) (economic‑reality factors for employer status)
- Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2003) (nonexclusive factors for employment relationship analysis)
- Carter v. Dutchess Cmty. Coll., 735 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1984) (factors for determining employer control)
- Potenza v. City of New York, 365 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2004) (describing FMLA interference claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework applied to retaliation claims)
- Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013) (evidence of pretext and employer inconsistencies relevant to retaliation)
- Larimer v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 370 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2004) (framework for ADA associational‑discrimination theories: expense, disability‑by‑association, distraction)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (employer explanation unworthy of credence may permit inference of discriminatory intent)