952 F. Supp. 2d 838
D. Minnesota2013Background
- Haskell worked as an Activities Aide at CentraCare Health System (CCHS) from 1978 until 2012, part-time (~24 hrs/wk), performing activities programming and substantial MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment/data-entry duties (about 50–60% of her time).
- In Dec. 2011 Haskell took approved 12 weeks of FMLA leave for a back condition and notified CCHS she could return in March 2012.
- While she was on leave, her supervisor Reuter assumed MDS duties (data entry and some assessments), found the process efficient, and decided to keep those duties upon Haskell’s return; Haskell would instead do more “floor” CNA-type work and have shifted hours (6:00–2:30 → 7:30–4:00).
- Haskell was also removed from leading the exercise program (additional $1/hr), though she was told she might resume it after medical clearance and training.
- After a February 2012 call informing her of these changes, Haskell felt harassed, resigned, and sued alleging violations of the FMLA. CCHS moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCHS violated the FMLA entitlement (interference) by not restoring Haskell to the same or equivalent position | Haskell: removal of substantial MDS duties and shift change were material changes so not an equivalent position | CCHS: title, pay, and benefits remained the same; changes were de minimis and thus equivalent | Denied summary judgment for CCHS — genuine issue of material fact whether changes (loss of MDS duties and schedule shift) were materially different and thus non-equivalent |
| Whether CCHS can avoid liability by proving it would have made the same changes irrespective of FMLA leave (same-decision defense) | Haskell: changes were made because she was on leave, not preplanned | CCHS: had been discussing schedule/duty changes before leave and would have implemented them anyway | Denied summary judgment — record insufficient to prove CCHS would have made same decision absent FMLA leave |
| Whether Haskell’s discrimination/retaliation claim (adverse action for taking FMLA leave) survives | Haskell: changes and her resignation were adverse and causally connected to leave | CCHS: changes were minor; no materially adverse action or causation | Granted for CCHS — court found no materially adverse action supporting retaliation/discrimination claim; that claim dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Haskell was constructively discharged (as basis for adverse action) | Haskell: working conditions were intolerable after the changes so she was constructively discharged | CCHS: changes were not objectively intolerable; no evidence employer intended to force her out | Court rejected constructive discharge — objective intolerability and employer intent not met; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (superseding summary-judgment standard reference) (summary judgment standard)
- Stallings v. Hussmann Corp., 447 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes interference and retaliation FMLA claims)
- Ballato v. Comcast Corp., 676 F.3d 768 (8th Cir. 2012) (FMLA interference claims do not require employer intent)
- Cooper v. Olin Corp., Winchester Div., 246 F.3d 1083 (8th Cir. 2001) (restoration to same title/pay may still violate FMLA if duties materially differ)
- Blakley v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 648 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2011) (employer may avoid liability by proving it would have made same decision absent FMLA leave)
- Clegg v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 496 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2007) (minor/unpalatable changes in duties that cause no material disadvantage do not constitute adverse action)