Kathleen Marez v. Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., 688 F.3d 958

Marez sues Saint-Gobain Containers for FMLA retaliation and MHRA gender discrimination.
Jury awards Marez for FMLA retaliation but favors Saint-Gobain on gender discrimination; liquidated damages awarded and some fees denied.
Marez was hired as a production supervisor at the Pevely, Missouri plant in 2006; she had no prior glass-manufacturing experience.
In July 2007 Marez goes on FMLA leave; Saint-Gobain terminates her in September 2007, then reinstates on September 13 after updated paperwork.
In January 2008 Marez informs Cook that she will need FMLA leave for her husband; Marez is terminated January 30, 2008 for alleged procedural violations.
Four managers participated in Marez’s termination; Marez presents evidence of inconsistent discipline and similar infractions by others who were not terminated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence of FMLA retaliation?	Marez relied on timing and selective discipline to prove causal link.	Termination for documented policy violations; timing alone insufficient.	Yes; reasonable cadence between protected activity and termination supported causation.
Are liquidated damages appropriate under cat’s-paw liability?	Cook’s animus caused the adverse action; liability imputable to Saint-Gobain.	Cat’s-paw theory not extend to liquidated damages; good faith defense possible.	Liquidated damages proper under cat’s-paw liability; district court did not abuse discretion.
Was the district court’s attorneys’ fees ruling proper under Hensley?	Fees should cover related claims; all five claims closely related.	Fees limited to successful FMLA claim; substantial reduction warranted.	The district court did not abuse discretion; 50% reduction appropriate given partial success.

Hite v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 446 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2006) (causal linkage in FMLA retaliation—timing and pretext evidence)
Darby v. Bratch, 287 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2002) (FMLA retaliation standard; adverse action with protected activity)
Sisk v. Picture People, Inc., 669 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2012) (temporal proximity can support causation with corroborating evidence)
Smith v. Allen Health Sys., Inc., 302 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2002) (temporal proximity must be very close to infer causation)
O’Bryan v. KTIV Television, 64 F.3d 1188 (8th Cir. 1995) (discusses temporal proximity in causation analysis)
Erickson v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 271 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2001) (pretext theory in disparate treatment cases)
Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186 (Supreme Court 2011) (cat’s-paw liability in employment discrimination)
Guimaraes v. SuperValu, Inc., 674 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2012) (cat’s-paw theory applied to liability of employer)
Thorson v. Gemini, Inc., 205 F.3d 370 (8th Cir. 2000) (liquidated damages under FMLA—standard of review)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court 1983) (lodestar method; factors for adjusting fees)
Thomlinson v. City of Omaha, 63 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 1995) (partial success and fee-shifting guidance)
Winter v. Cerro Gordo County Conservation Board, 925 F.2d 1069 (8th Cir. 1991) (fee-factor analysis methodology (Johnson factors))
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (factors for attorney's fee determinations)