Green v. Christus Spohn Health System, 2:18-cv-00064

Green worked as a Pharmacy Informaticist for Christus Spohn from June 2013 until termination on December 16, 2016; supervisors were Chapa (manager) and Saucedo (director).
Beginning June 2016, Green received progressive discipline for emailing outside the chain of command, working from home without approval, hanging up on his supervisor, and unprofessional communications; warnings and a PIP followed through December 2016.
Green’s 16-year-old son was in a September 2016 car accident and suffered neuro/behavioral problems; Green discussed caregiving burdens with supervisors and was informed about Defendant’s EAP and FMLA procedures multiple times.
Green did not submit an FMLA leave request to Liberty (the FMLA administrator) for his son before termination; he acknowledged knowing the company’s FMLA process but testified he and his manager were trying to avoid using FMLA.
On December 16, 2016 Green was placed on administrative leave after an escalatory meeting about attendance and conduct and was terminated that day; post-termination contacts led to a cease-and-desist and trespass warnings.
Magistrate Judge Libby recommended granting summary judgment for Defendant, finding no FMLA interference or retaliation because Green failed to follow procedural notice requirements and Defendant has legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FMLA interference — did employer deny or discourage FMLA leave for son’s serious health condition?	Green argues he reasonably notified supervisors of need for leave (discussed son’s condition) and was effectively denied protection when disciplined/terminated.	Christus contends Green never filed an FMLA request with Liberty, failed to follow employer notice/procedures, and was given FMLA information repeatedly.	Held for Defendant: no interference — Green did not give proper notice or initiate FMLA leave, so no denial.
FMLA retaliation — was termination caused by inquiry/request about FMLA?	Green asserts temporal proximity between asking about FMLA and termination shows causation.	Christus argues termination resulted from documented performance, attendance, communication, and insubordination problems predating son’s accident; offered legitimate non-discriminatory reasons.	Held for Defendant: no retaliation — temporal proximity insufficient given prior discipline; Plaintiff produced no evidence of pretext.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must show genuine issue)
Acker v. General Motors, L.L.C., 853 F.3d 784 (5th Cir.) (employer may enforce notice procedures for FMLA leave)
Mauder v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, 446 F.3d 574 (5th Cir.) (temporal proximity and prior discipline in FMLA retaliation analysis)
Manuel v. Westlake Polymers Corp., 66 F.3d 758 (5th Cir.) (notice standard for FMLA)
Satterfield v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 135 F.3d 973 (5th Cir.) (employer’s duty to inquire when warranted)