779 F.3d 514
8th Cir.2015Background
- Johnson began working at a U.S. Steel plant in 2004 and rose to a lead role that sometimes required forklift operation.
- In May 2011 Johnson took leave after reporting severe symptoms; he visited a clinic and received a note indicating he could return on May 16, 2011.
- Love required additional documentation; Johnson supplied a second note, which was rejected for lack of stated reasons for absence; a third note was obtained but contested.
- U.S. Steel suspended Johnson on May 16 and terminated him on May 18 for allegedly falsifying work excuses, with no notice of FMLA rights or obligations during the leave.
- Stewart later faxed new copies and a signed letter explaining the notes were legitimate, but Johnson was not reinstated.
- Johnson filed suit under the FMLA; the district court granted summary judgment for U.S. Steel, and Johnson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson proved a serious health condition under continuing treatment | Johnson argues he had a continuing treatment regimen for high blood pressure. | U.S. Steel contends Johnson failed to show the regimen was supervised and within 30 days of incapacity. | No genuine dispute; Johnson failed to show supervision and timely follow-up. |
| Whether Thorson bars challenges to the seriousness finding due to defective certification | Thorson precludes using late certifications to negate incapacity. | Thorson does not create a per se rule; the employer may challenge incapacity with contemporaneous evidence. | Thorson not dispositive; Johnson failed to prove serious condition under regulation. |
| Whether Johnson's entitlement to reinstatement was violated | Johnson was entitled to leave and reinstatement under FMLA. | Johnson had no qualifying serious health condition and was terminated for misconduct unrelated to FMLA. | No entitlement established; dismissal of entitlement claim affirmed. |
| Whether alleged notice deficiencies prejudiced Johnson | U.S. Steel failed to provide FMLA rights and obligations notice. | Technical violations require prejudice; Johnson offered no proof of prejudice. | Prejudice not shown; notice deficiencies did not sustain FMLA claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stallings v. Hussmann Corp., 447 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2006) (employee must show entitlement to the denied benefit)
- Darby v. Bratch, 287 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2002) (entitlement depends on existence of a qualifying leave)
- Rankin v. Seagate Techs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1145 (8th Cir. 2001) (absence not due to serious health condition not protected)
- Frazier v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 200 F.3d 1190 (8th Cir. 2000) (serious health condition requires causation with FMLA protection)
- Thorson v. Gemini, Inc., 205 F.3d 370 (8th Cir. 2000) (employer may not rely on post-incapacity evaluations to create issues of incapacity)
- Murphy v. FedEx NTL, Inc., 618 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2010) (contemporaneous medical evidence governs incapacity disputes)
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (burden to show real impairment and prejudice from notice violations)
- FMLA Final Rule, 60 Fed. Reg. 2180 (1995) (regimen requires supervision by health care provider)