Johnson v. Dollar General
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105267
N.D. Iowa2012Background
- Dollar General operates a chain of retail stores; Johnson was store manager in Garner, IA from Jan 2008 to May 6, 2009.
- Johnson suffered a work-related knee injury in Oct 2008 and a heart attack in Nov 2008, taking workers’ comp and company leave respectively.
- Johnson returned to work in Jan 2009 with a “good” performance review but alleges discriminatory treatment post-return.
- In Apr–May 2009 Johnson was ill again; he left work, requested five days of vacation, and allegedly received threatening voicemails from Williams.
- Johnson ultimately resigned May 6, 2009, which he contends was a constructive discharge; Dollar General contends he voluntarily resigned.
- Dollar General did not pay Johnson a quarterly Teamshare bonus due to the payout date occurring after his employment ended, under the policy; Johnson argues state law requires payout regardless of employment status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference claim for denial of leave | Johnson entitled to FMLA rights due to serious condition | No serious condition; no adequate notice; no FMLA leave entitlement | Summary judgment for defendants (no FMLA interference) |
| FMLA interference claim for failure to grant leave | Absence in April–May 2009 tied to serious health condition; notice given | No serious health condition; no adequate notice; no FMLA leave entitlement | Summary judgment for defendants (no FMLA interference) |
| FMLA retaliation claim | Protected activity by seeking/attempting FMLA leave; adverse action occurred | No protected activity shown; no causal link; or pretext missing | Summary judgment for defendants (no retaliation) |
| Workers’ compensation retaliation / constructive discharge claim | Constructive discharge due to retaliation for workers’ comp claims | No protected activity tied to 2009 absence; no causal link; supervisor liability limited | Summary judgment for defendants (no workers’ comp retaliation) |
| IWPCL bonus payment claim | Bonus constitutes wages due; payout date after termination; eligibility policy unclear | Eligibility tied to payout date; not due under Iowa law; Johnson not employed on payout date | Summary judgment for defendants (bonus not due); IWPCL claim failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ballato v. Comcast Corp., 676 F.3d 768 (8th Cir.2012) (FMLA retaliation/interference dichotomy and notice principles explained)
- Lovland v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 674 F.3d 806 (8th Cir.2012) (Retaliation framework under McDonnell Douglas; §825.220(c) regulatory context)
- Chappell v. Bilco Co., 675 F.3d 1110 (8th Cir.2012) (Interference/retaliation conceptual framework for FMLA claims)
- Scobey v. Nucor Steel-Ark., 580 F.3d 781 (8th Cir.2009) (Retaliation basis under §2615(a)(1) vs §2615(a)(2); Stallings discussion)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir.2011) (En banc rejected discrimination-case exception to summary judgment; standard applied)