Hudson v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 1:13-cv-00366

Background

Hudson worked at Home Depot from 2001 to 2011 in a full-time special service desk role and had a long history of tardies and absences.
From 2003–2011 many attendance incidents were linked to Hudson’s care for her sick mother; Hudson says she notified managers by phone each time and was told the absences were excused.
Home Depot changed its attendance policy in 2010 from a points system to a discretionary scheme where repeated unexcused issues could lead to a “final counseling” and termination.
Hudson received a final counseling on July 22, 2011; she was absent July 27, 2011, and terminated August 6, 2011. The termination letter listed 34 attendance occurrences.
Hudson sued under the FMLA, alleging Home Depot used her FMLA‑qualifying leave as a negative factor in firing her. Home Depot moved for summary judgment arguing (1) many absences were not FMLA‑protected because notice/certification requirements were unmet and (2) it did not rely on FMLA leave in the termination decision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Hudson’s absences FMLA‑protected (sufficient notice / certification)?	Hudson: phone calls to managers notifying them her absences/tardies were to care for her mother sufficed; many absences were unforeseeable.	Home Depot: supervisors lacked notice and Hudson failed to provide required medical certification when requested.	Disputed factual issues exist about notice and whether certification was requested/denied; triable issues preclude summary judgment.
Did Home Depot use FMLA leave as a negative factor in termination?	Hudson: termination letter and record list attendance occurrences, some FMLA‑related, so leave was used as a negative factor.	Home Depot: decision relied on long history of non‑FMLA attendance problems; even without FMLA leave Hudson would have been fired.	Material factual dispute exists whether FMLA‑protected absences were considered; cannot decide as a matter of law.
Is the Ninth Circuit McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting framework applicable?	Hudson: not necessary; she need only show FMLA leave was a negative factor.	Home Depot: (argues that non‑FMLA attendance alone justified termination).	Court follows Ninth Circuit precedent rejecting McDonnell Douglas for §825.220(c); plaintiff need only show leave was a negative factor at all.
Is summary judgment appropriate?	Hudson: disputed facts on notice, certification requests, and reliance require jury resolution.	Home Depot: facts show non‑FMLA absences alone warranted termination; summary judgment should be granted.	Denied — genuine disputes of material fact require jury determination.

Key Cases Cited

Xiu Liu v. Amway Corp., 347 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (declining to apply McDonnell Douglas to §825.220 claims; employer must not use FMLA leave as a negative factor at all)
Bachelder v. Am. W. Airlines, 259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding plaintiff need only prove by preponderance that FMLA leave was a negative factor in termination)
Conoshenti v. Public Service Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2004) (employer does not violate §825.220 when it would have fired employee regardless of FMLA leave)
Smith v. Medpointe Healthcare, [citation="338 F. App'x 230"] (3d Cir. 2009) (upholding employer judgment where non‑FMLA leave independently supported termination)