610 F. App'x 488
6th Cir.2015Background
- Henderson worked at Chrysler from 1986; from May 2007–June 2011 she was a Talent Acquisition Placement Manager whose TA position was outsourced in June 2011.
- Supervisors and internal customers repeatedly complained about Henderson’s poor performance, inattentiveness, nonresponsiveness, attendance issues, and unauthorized work-from-home days; she received a subpar 2010 performance review.
- In early May 2011 Henderson took leave for rheumatoid arthritis treatment (and earlier missed days caring for her ill daughter); she notified supervisors and then took extended medical leave and requested FMLA paperwork (which she did not return).
- Her TA position was outsourced while she was on leave; she returned in late June 2011, was placed on administrative leave, and was laid off in August 2011 after she had not secured another internal job.
- In late 2011 Henderson applied for many Chrysler positions; she interviewed for a Model Planner role, was placed in an HR “offer pool,” but HR (Franson) learned negative performance feedback from her supervisors and relayed it to the hiring manager (St. Pierre), who rescinded consideration; Henderson did not get the job.
- Henderson sued under the FMLA, ADA (and related Michigan statutes), ADEA, and ELCRA; the district court granted summary judgment for Chrysler, finding Henderson failed to prove FMLA retaliation or disability discrimination, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Henderson established FMLA retaliation (causation/knowledge) | Her May–June 2011 medical leave and FMLA request led to adverse action (not hired Dec. 2011) | Hiring decisionmakers lacked knowledge of her FMLA-protected leave; temporal gap and intervening events break causation | No — Henderson failed to show employer knowledge/causal link; temporal distance and lack of retaliatory evidence defeat claim |
| Whether early-May absences to care for daughter are FMLA-protected and actionable | Those absences were protected and part of retaliation claim | That theory was not pled and was first raised at summary judgment | Waived — not in amended complaint, so cannot be asserted at summary judgment |
| Whether ADA/PWDCRA disability discrimination claim is established (knowledge/causation) | Her rheumatoid arthritis was known to supervisors and motivated adverse hiring decision via the cat’s paw theory | Decisionmakers (Franson, St. Pierre) lacked knowledge of disability; negative reports were performance-based, not discriminatory | No — plaintiff failed to show decisionmakers knew of disability or that intervening actors had discriminatory animus; cat’s paw inapplicable on facts |
| Whether employer’s stated reasons (poor performance, attendance, behavioral issues) were pretextual | Employer’s proffered performance reasons were pretext for retaliation/discrimination | Substantial documentary and testimonial evidence supported legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons | No need to reach pretext as prima facie cases failed; summary judgment for employer affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011) (defines cat’s paw theory—when subordinate’s biased act intended to cause adverse action can impute liability to employer)
- Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co., 516 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2008) (temporal proximity alone may establish causation only when timing is very close)
- Killian v. Yorozu Auto. Tenn., Inc., 454 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2006) (elements for FMLA retaliation prima facie case)
- Saroli v. Automation & Modular Components, Inc., 405 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2005) (FMLA interference/retaliation principles)