Holley v. BBS/Mendoza, LLC d/b/a McDonald's
2:23-cv-00052
S.D. OhioApr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Pamela Holley was a former employee of BBS/Mendoza LLC, a McDonald's franchisee in Ohio, and suffers from hypertension.
- Holley alleged she was wrongfully terminated on August 27, 2021, after reporting illness related to her hypertension at work.
- She claimed BBS/Mendoza interfered with her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and retaliated against her under Title VII when not considering her for rehire after her April 2023 application.
- The case went to a jury trial, which found in favor of BBS/Mendoza on all claims.
- Holley then moved for judgment as a matter of law (renewed JNOV) or, alternatively, for a new trial on her FMLA interference and Title VII retaliation claims.
- The court considered whether reasonable minds could only have found for Holley or whether the jury’s verdict was against the weight of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA Interference: Entitlement | Holley's symptoms entitled her to FMLA leave on Aug. 27, 2021 | Symptoms on that day were unrelated to hypertension | Jury could reasonably conclude Holley not entitled |
| FMLA Interference: General Notice | Lack of FMLA notice in breakroom/handbook | Jury could find notice was posted (or in handbook) | Jury could reasonably find no violation |
| FMLA Interference: Employee Notice | Her breaks and informing supervisors triggered FMLA inquiry duty | No adequate or consistent notice to trigger FMLA duty | Jury could reasonably find Holley did not give notice |
| Title VII Retaliation | BBS/Mendoza failed to rehire her due to pending litigation (retaliation) | Application was incomplete; no causal link to litigation | Jury could reasonably find no retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 496 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard for judgment as a matter of law—evidence viewed in non-movant’s favor)
- Denhof v. City of Grand Rapids, 494 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2007) (new trial only if verdict clearly against weight of evidence)
- Gray v. Toshiba Am. Consumer Prods., Inc., 263 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 2001) (similar standard for judgment as a matter of law)
- Szekeres v. CSX Transp., Inc., 731 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2013) (courts do not weigh evidence or judge credibility on such motions)
- Duncan v. Duncan, 377 F.2d 49 (6th Cir. 1967) (jury verdict must be accepted if it could reasonably have been reached)