11 F.4th 301
5th Cir.2021Background
- James Hester worked at Bell‑Textron from 1997–2018 and suffers from epilepsy and glaucoma; his wife has stage‑four cancer and he assists her medically.
- Supervisor Vance Cribb issued Hester a poor mid‑year review (June 2018) and a final warning after an October 2018 testing incident; Hester protested and was escorted off the premises and told to seek an employee assistance program.
- HR encouraged Hester to apply for short‑term disability and FMLA; he was approved for both and was on FMLA leave when HR telephoned and fired him on December 6, 2018, citing the June performance review.
- Hester sued asserting two FMLA claims: (1) discriminatory termination for exercising FMLA rights; and (2) interference with his right to reinstatement after leave.
- The district court dismissed both claims under Rule 12(b)(6); the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding Hester’s pleadings sufficient as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA discrimination (termination) | Hester: termination occurred during active FMLA leave; temporal proximity and timeline support causation | Bell‑Textron: cited pre‑leave poor performance, protest, and ejection; timing alone insufficient | Reversed — pleadings sufficiently allege causation; termination while on leave and timeline not "completely unrelated" |
| FMLA interference (reinstatement) | Hester: employer denied reinstatement by firing him during FMLA; HR encouraged and assisted his leave application | Bell‑Textron: allegations show legitimate reasons for firing, so he would have been terminated regardless and had no right to reinstatement | Reversed — district court improperly imposed employer's summary‑judgment burden at pleading stage; allegations suffice to plead interference |
| Pleading standard applied by district court | Hester: Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard governs Rule 12(b)(6) | Bell‑Textron/district court: relied on Shirley (summary‑judgment standard) to require allegation that he would not have been fired absent leave | Reversed — court held district court erred by applying Shirley's summary‑judgment burden to the pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Bocalbos v. Nat’l W. Life Ins. Co., 162 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 1998) (elements for an FMLA discrimination/retaliation prima facie case)
- Mauder v. Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris Cnty., Tex., 446 F.3d 574 (5th Cir. 2006) (temporal proximity and causation standard for FMLA claims)
- Caldwell v. KHOU‑TV, 850 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2017) (prima facie elements for FMLA interference claims)
- Shirley v. Precision Castparts Corp., 726 F.3d 675 (5th Cir. 2013) (employer’s summary‑judgment burden to show employee would have lost position regardless of leave)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 8)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)