Hunt v. DaVita, Inc.
680 F.3d 775
7th Cir.2012Background
- Hunt, an at-will DaVita employee for 19 years, began leave after heart surgery; she used 3 months FMLA leave and 3 months non-work-related medical leave totaling six months.
- DaVita terminated Hunt for not returning after leave expired per its policy, effective Feb 28, 2010, while Hunt’s doctor later cleared her to work on May 5, 2010.
- A temporary worker filled Hunt’s position during leave; permanent reassignment occurred Aug 21, 2010.
- Hunt sought workers’ compensation for carpal tunnel but termination occurred before a claim; she alleged retaliation for anticipated claim.
- Velasquez, not Thompson, made the termination decision and testified she relied only on exhausted leave; Hunt offered no evidence that Velasquez knew of any potential workers’ compensation claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment for DaVita on the retaliation claims and denied remand; it also found subject-matter jurisdiction proper and held policy neutral.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hunt showed retaliation by knowledge of a claim | Hunt argues Velasquez knew or was influenced by knowledge of the claim | Velasquez acted independently based on exhausted leave; no probative retaliatory intent shown | No genuine issue; no evidence of retaliatory knowledge or intent |
| Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction | Removal improper because amount-in-controversy could fall below $75,000 | Post-removal actions cannot defeat jurisdiction; potential punitive damages could exceed $75,000 | Jurisdiction proper; not legally certain that amount would be under threshold |
| Whether the leave policy is unlawfully retaliatory on its face | Neutral policy could be used to retaliate against workers’ compensation claims | Neutral, uniformly applied policy allowed; cannot be deemed retaliatory without proof of intent | Policy neutral and permissible; cannot infer retaliation from policy alone |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on the retaliation claim | Evidence supported retaliation by decision-maker | No evidence that decision-maker knew of claim or acted with retaliatory intent; policy applies equally | Summary judgment affirmed; Hunt failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether deposition conduct warrants sanctions | DaVita coaches witness during deposition; coercive conduct | District court had discretion; no substantial impediment to testimony | No abuse of discretion; courts may police discovery without striking testimony |
| Whether sanctions against Hunt were warranted for frivolous appeal | Appeal arguments weak; request for sanctions unnecessary | Sanctions not warranted without proper motion and response opportunity | Court declines to sanction Hunt; no basis for sanctions on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- LM Ins. Corp. v. Spaulding Enterprises Inc., 533 F.3d 542 (7th Cir.2008) (post-removal issues and jurisdictional considerations for damages)
- St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (post-removal amendments do not require remand when damages are increased)
- Back Doctors Ltd. v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 637 F.3d 827 (7th Cir.2011) (post-removal disclaimers do not defeat diversity jurisdiction)
- Chase v. Shop 'N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424 (7th Cir.1997) (post-removal stipulations to limit damages do not defeat jurisdiction)
- In re Shell Oil Co., 970 F.2d 355 (7th Cir.1992) (mandamus relief related to remand orders following post-removal actions)
- Dotson v. BRP U.S. Inc., 520 F.3d 703 (7th Cir.2008) (neutrally-applied leave policies permissible; firing for excess absenteeism allowed)
- Hartlein v. Illinois Power Co., 151 Ill.2d 142, 176 Ill.Dec. 22, 601 N.E.2d 720 (1992) (employer may terminate at-will employee not returning after leave; no obligation to retain)