Justin Adkins v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 70 F.4th 785

Background

June 2017: CSX issued furlough notices at its Huntington, WV facility; shortly thereafter 67 employees submitted similar "Certificate of Ongoing Illness or Injury" (COII) forms.
All COIIs were signed by one of two chiropractors, described minor off-duty soft-tissue injuries, and requested at least eight weeks off. CSX’s chief medical officer thought such injuries normally required only days to a week to recover.
Dr. Craig Heligman (CSX Chief Medical Officer) became suspicious of a pattern of potential benefits fraud and referred the matter to Labor Relations. CSX charged employees with dishonesty under its operating rules.
Each charged employee received a formal investigation hearing with union representation and transcripts; Labor Relations recommended termination and VP Brian Barr made termination decisions for dishonesty. Some terminations were later largely upheld by the Public Law Board.
58 employees sued CSX asserting claims under ERISA, the Rehabilitation Act, the West Virginia Human Rights Act, and the FMLA, among others; the district court granted summary judgment to CSX on the remaining four claims. On appeal six plaintiffs remained and challenge summary judgment on discrimination/retaliation and FMLA interference grounds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CSX’s termination was pretext for unlawful discrimination/retaliation under ERISA, the Rehabilitation Act, WVHRA, and FMLA	Plaintiffs say the investigations were "predetermined" (Heligman had already decided fraud), Heligman’s view was speculative and no conclusive fraud evidence exists, so termination was pretextual.	CSX says it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason: suspected benefits fraud based on the pattern of similar COIIs; the ultimate decisionmaker (VP Barr) terminated after reviewing full hearing records.	Court: CSX provided a legitimate reason; plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine factual dispute of pretext; summary judgment affirmed.
Whether CSX interfered with FMLA rights by failing to treat COII forms as FMLA requests and failing to give FMLA notice/certification opportunities	Plaintiffs contend CSX should have treated COIIs as FMLA requests and notified them; lack of notice deprived them of opportunities (structuring leave, certification, second opinion) and honest belief is not a defense.	CSX contends (1) it honestly believed leave requests were fraudulent and (2) any notice failure caused no prejudice because plaintiffs were granted two months leave and supplied no evidence they would have acted differently or produced additional medical proof.	Court: Even assuming notice failures, plaintiffs did not prove the required prejudice under the FMLA; absence of prejudice defeats interference claim; summary judgment affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (plaintiff must show employer’s reason was pretext)
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002) (FMLA entitlement/interference requires prejudice)
Vannoy v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 827 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2016) (applies McDonnell Douglas to FMLA retaliation and explains FMLA does not protect against discipline for misconduct)
Kariotis v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 131 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 1997) (recognizes "honest belief" defense in FMLA context)
Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2000) (courts defer to employer’s stated reason if it was the real reason)
DeJarnette v. Corning Inc., 133 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 1998) (same)
Rhoads v. FDIC, 257 F.3d 373 (4th Cir. 2001) (statutory "may" for second/third opinions is permissive, not mandatory)
Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208 (4th Cir. 2007) (focus on perception of the actual decisionmaker)
Yashenko v. Harrah’s NC Casino Co., 446 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2006) (McDonnell Douglas framework applied to retaliation claims)