Harville v. Texas A & M University
833 F. Supp. 2d 645
S.D. Tex.2011Background
- Plaintiff Melissa Harville was terminated from a TAMU biology lab run by Kathryn Ryan.
- Defendants TAMU, Mortensen, Ryan, and Maes moved for summary judgment; Harville responded; court grants defendants in full.
- Harville alleges FMLA interference/retaliation and ADA/RA discrimination/retaliation based on disability.
- Harville claim arises from May 2008 employment through December 21, 2009 termination date and prior FMLA leaves starting July 2009.
- Harville received multiple medical certifications and episodic leave approvals; she frequently missed work and did not follow notice requirements.
- Termination occurred after Mortensen recommended termination and TAMU officials approved; the court notes absence over permitted leave and policy violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA employer status and liability | Harville asserts Mortensen, Ryan, Maes liable as her employers under FMLA. | Mortensen/Maes not employers; qualified immunity; TAMU is the proper FMLA employer. | Mortensen and Maes not liable; TAMU only proper employer; qualified immunity applies. |
| FMLA interference | Harville contends denial/interference with FMLA rights due to termination. | Evidence shows adherence to leave policy; not denied FMLA leave; intermittent leave not misapplied. | No FMLA interference; terminate for policy violations and excessive absences beyond certified leave. |
| FMLA retaliation | Harville argues termination was motivated by exercising FMLA rights. | Legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons; policy violations and missed work justify termination; no pretext shown. | No retaliation; plaintiff fails to show pretext. |
| ADA/RA discrimination and retaliation | Harville alleges disability as basis for termination and retaliation. | Plaintiff could not perform essential functions; no reasonable accommodation owed; no evidence of discrimination/retaliation. | ADA/RA claims dismissed; plaintiff not qualified and not terminated due to disability. |
| RA retaliation against official-capacity claims | RA retaliation against TAMU employees in their official capacities should attach to TAMU. | RA claims against individuals in official capacities duplicate TAMU claims; court should dismiss. | RA retaliation claims against individuals in official capacities dismissed as duplicative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Rapides Healthcare System, LLC, 277 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2001) (FMLA retaliation framework; standard for prima facie and pretext)
- Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes FMLA employer liability)
- Watson v. Graves, 909 F.2d 1549 (5th Cir. 1990) (tests for employer control under FMLA)
- Donovan v. Grim Hotel Co., 747 F.2d 966 (7th Cir. 1984) (control test for individual liability under FMLA)
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003) (mixed-motive framework in retaliation cases)
- Miles-Hickman v. David Powers Homes, Inc., 589 F.Supp.2d 849 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (evidence burden in FMLA retaliation cases)
- Armstrong v. Turner Indus., Inc., not applicable (N/A) (cited for comparative burden in retaliation)
- Seaman v. CSPH, Inc., 179 F.3d 297 (5th Cir. 1999) (ADA prima facie elements and disability definition)
- Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) (definition of disability under ADA)
- Treviño v. United Parcel Serv., No. 3:08-CV-889-B (N.D. Tex. 2009) (ADA accommodation and FMLA distinction)