Greene v. Railcrew Express, LLC
4:16-cv-00747
E.D. Mo.Sep 29, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Paul Greene was a Railcrew Express general manager whose job required frequent long-distance driving and extended sitting to visit ~22 locations across six states.
- Greene underwent shoulder surgery in February 2016 and took twelve weeks of FMLA leave; his doctor thereafter cleared him to return with restrictions: no long-distance driving, no overhead lifting >5 lbs, and no below-shoulder lifting >15 lbs.
- Greene notified Railcrew HR of the restrictions; Railcrew’s VP of Human Resources terminated him because the driving and lifting restrictions prevented performance of essential duties and the company lacked staffing/management capacity to accommodate him.
- Greene sued under the FMLA (and initially under the ADA, later dismissed the ADA claim), alleging retaliation for taking FMLA leave when Railcrew terminated him at the end of his leave.
- Railcrew moved for summary judgment; Greene did not oppose; the court treated Railcrew’s uncontested facts as admitted and granted summary judgment for Railcrew.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination after FMLA leave is an adverse employment action/denial of restoration | Greene argues he was terminated because he took FMLA leave and thus was entitled to restoration | Railcrew argues Greene could not perform an essential function (long-distance driving) at end of leave, so restoration not required | Court held termination was not an adverse action because Greene could not perform an essential job function and thus was not entitled to restoration |
| Whether there is causation between FMLA leave and termination (retaliation) | Greene contends termination was causally related to his taking leave | Railcrew contends termination was based on inability to perform job duties, not on taking leave | Court held no causal connection; termination was due to inability to perform essential functions |
| Whether employer must accommodate employee’s post-leave restrictions under FMLA | Greene implicitly argues employer should restore or accommodate him after leave | Railcrew argues FMLA does not require keeping an employee in a position they cannot perform; ADA covers accommodation claims | Court held FMLA does not require accommodation for inability to perform essential functions; employer not obligated under FMLA to accommodate |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment where plaintiff does not oppose and facts are uncontested | Greene did not oppose summary judgment | Railcrew moved and submitted statement of uncontroverted facts | Court granted summary judgment, treating Railcrew’s facts as admitted and finding no genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Hatchett v. Philander Smith College, 251 F.3d 670 (8th Cir. 2001) (employee not entitled to restoration under FMLA if still unable to perform an essential job function)
- Battle v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 438 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2006) (FMLA does not obligate employer to retain an employee who cannot perform essential functions)
- Bloom v. Metro Heart Grp. of St. Louis, Inc., 440 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir. 2006) (restoration principles under the FMLA reaffirmed)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for judgment as a matter of law and description of nonmoving party's burden at summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting and nonmoving party obligations)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (court must grant summary judgment where nonmoving party cannot show a genuine issue of material fact)
- Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc., 368 U.S. 464 (1962) (summary judgment standard authority cited)
- Davidson v. Tyco/Healthcare, 416 F. Supp. 2d 690 (E.D. Mo. 2005) (termination not adverse where employee unable to perform essential duties after leave)