322 F. Supp. 3d 218
D.D.C.2018Background
- Higgins worked for the Town of Concord for over 20 years and began taking leave in mid-2015 to care for her husband; she requested FMLA paperwork in January 2016.
- After informing supervisors about her family medical need, Higgins was demoted, presented with a Last Chance Agreement (LCA) which she signed, and later terminated for alleged misconduct/breach of the LCA.
- The LCA contained a waiver of pre-termination procedural protections and a broader waiver of court actions for further disciplinary measures.
- Higgins alleges defendants fabricated misconduct to induce her to sign the LCA and then used subsequent minor incidents to justify termination; she also asserts FMLA retaliation (demotion, LCA, termination) for taking protected leave.
- Defendants move for summary judgment; court evaluates procedural and substantive due process claims and an FMLA retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process — right to pre-termination hearing | Higgins: termination without pre-termination hearing violated procedural due process | Defendants: Higgins waived pre-termination hearing in the LCA | Court: Granted for defendants — waiver bars claim |
| Substantive due process — fabrication of misconduct to coerce LCA/terminate | Higgins: defendants manufactured misconduct and conscience-shocking scheme to oust her | Defendants: actions were disciplinary responses to actual misconduct; no conscience-shocking conduct | Court: Granted for defendants — evidence insufficient to show conscience-shocking scheme |
| FMLA retaliation — demotion, LCA, termination motivated by protected leave | Higgins: adverse actions caused by taking FMLA leave; close temporal proximity and supervisor knowledge support causation | Defendants: actions were for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (misconduct) | Court: Denied for defendants — genuine dispute of fact remains; prima facie established and pretext shown |
| Cat’s paw liability / decisionmaker knowledge | Higgins: biased supervisor (Hodges) knew of leave and influenced Whelan’s decisions; impute knowledge | Defendants: Whelan unaware of FMLA; no causal link | Court: Found enough evidence to raise triable issue that Hodges’ bias influenced Whelan (cat’s paw theory) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pagan v. Calderon, 448 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.) (substantive due process requires conscience-shocking conduct)
- Hodgens v. General Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151 (1st Cir.) (McDonnell Douglas framework for retaliation claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S.) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Cariglia v. Hertz Equip. Rental Corp., 363 F.3d 77 (1st Cir.) (cat’s paw theory of supervisor-driven bias)
- Byrne v. Avon Prods., Inc., 328 F.3d 379 (7th Cir.) (employer knowledge of need for leave can support retaliation causation)
- Paylor v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir.) (FMLA protects against induced waiver of prospective rights)