Hockenjos v. MTA Metro-North Railroad
695 F. App'x 15
2d Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff John Hockenjos, Jr. was terminated by defendant MTA Metro-North Railroad and sued under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for interference and retaliation.
- District Court granted summary judgment to Metro-North on both FMLA claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining New York state law claims; judgment entered May 18, 2016.
- On appeal, Hockenjos argued Metro-North interfered with his FMLA rights and retaliated for taking FMLA leave; he also attempted to re-characterize December 2012–January 2013 leave as FMLA-related for the first time on appeal.
- The Second Circuit reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and requiring more than speculation to defeat summary judgment.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: it agreed with the District Court’s reasoning on the interference claim and held Hockenjos failed to show Metro-North’s termination reasons were pretextual under the motivating-factor standard for retaliation.
- The Court declined to consider Hockenjos’s new argument that earlier leave was FMLA-protected because it was raised for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference | Hockenjos: Metro-North interfered with his FMLA rights leading to wrongful termination | Metro-North: no unlawful interference; termination lawful and not FMLA-driven | Affirmed for reasons given by the District Court; summary judgment for Metro-North |
| FMLA retaliation | Hockenjos: termination was retaliation for taking FMLA leave | Metro-North: termination reasons legitimate; no causal showing of retaliation | Affirmed — plaintiff failed to present evidence that termination was pretextual under motivating-factor standard |
| New FMLA timing argument | Hockenjos: his Dec 2012–Jan 2013 leave was FMLA-related (first raised on appeal) | Metro-North: procedural default; issue not properly preserved | Not considered — appellate court will not review issues raised first on appeal |
| Supplemental state-law claims | Hockenjos: (presumably urged continuation) | Metro-North: District Court should dismiss without exercising supplemental jurisdiction | District Court declined supplemental jurisdiction; Second Circuit did not disturb that disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Willey v. Kirkpatrick, 801 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary-judgment standard and de novo review explained)
- Rodriguez v. Vill. Green Realty, Inc., 788 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard for granting summary judgment under Rule 56)
- Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2005) (mere speculation or conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)