Joanne Partin v. Weltman Weinberg & Reis
666 F. App'x 428
6th Cir.2016Background
- WWR, a multi-state law firm, implemented a multi-phase reduction in force (RIF) from 2012–2014, eliminating ~33% of staff including positions in the Legal Processing Department.
- Partin worked as a Cincinnati legal-processing clerk since 2003 and took FMLA leave for knee-replacement surgery in late 2013; she sought and received an extension but used all FMLA leave.
- WWR used five ranked selection criteria for layoffs (ability to absorb work; overall performance; disciplinary history; adaptability/teamwork; seniority) and supervisors (Stevens and Duncan) ranked clerks under those criteria.
- Partin was identified for layoff in December 2013 but was not notified while on FMLA; after she submitted a return-to-work slip indicating she would need a walking aid, WWR informed her in January 2014 that her position was eliminated as part of the RIF.
- Partin sued for FMLA retaliation/interference and disability discrimination under Ohio law; the magistrate and district court granted summary judgment to WWR, and Partin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Partin raised sufficient evidence of pretext for FMLA retaliation under McDonnell Douglas | Partin contends selection patterns (several laid-off employees used FMLA), retention of lower-performing/non-FMLA clerks, and WWR’s failure to produce a Stevens write-up show pretext | WWR argues the firm-wide, multi-office RIF and articulated selection criteria were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons; missing document not shown to exist | Court held Partin failed to produce sufficient evidence of pretext; summary judgment for WWR affirmed |
| Whether the timing of WWR learning about Partin’s need for a walking-aid constitutes direct evidence of disability discrimination | Partin argues the close temporal proximity is direct evidence that the walking-aid motivated the termination | WWR maintains the elimination was part of a legitimate RIF and timing requires inference, not direct proof of discriminatory motive | Court held the timing was circumstantial (not direct evidence); McDonnell Douglas framework applies |
| Whether Partin established a prima facie disability-discrimination case (failure-to-fill element) | Partin asserts circumstantial and temporal evidence suffice to make a prima facie case | WWR points out it did not try to fill Partin’s position and identified legitimate RIF reasons | Court held Partin failed to show a required element (attempt to fill position) and summary judgment was proper |
| Whether an adverse inference should be drawn from WWR’s non-production of Stevens’s write-up | Partin argues the write-up likely existed and would be adverse; non-production permits an adverse inference | WWR disputes that Stevens produced a write-up for this round and Partin cannot prove its existence | Court held Partin failed to show the document existed; no adverse inference; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for indirect evidence)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (pretext standard and when employer entitled to judgment despite weak pretext evidence)
- Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., 681 F.3d 274 (distinguishes FMLA interference and retaliation theories)
- Arban v. W. Publ’g Corp., 345 F.3d 390 (FMLA interference requires no discriminatory intent)
- Ferrari v. Ford Motor Co., 826 F.3d 885 (prima facie failure-to-fill/replacement element in RIF context)
- Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394 (pretext inquiry at summary judgment)