Kimberly Laing v. Federal Express Corporation
703 F.3d 713
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Laing, FedEx courier, alleges FMLA retaliation and failure to restore after medical leave.
- Investigation into Laing’s delivery-record practices began Feb 2009, before her FMLA leave.
- Laing took FMLA leave March 19, 2009 for knee surgery; leave granted March 19, 2009.
- Laing was suspended on her return (June 4, 2009) and terminated (June 30, 2009) for alleged falsification of delivery records under FedEx policy.
- District court granted FedEx summary judgment on both claims; no comparator evidence identified by Laing; termination based on investigations and policy violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Laing proved FMLA retaliation direct or circumstantial evidence | Laing asserts direct or McDonnell Douglas proof of retaliation | FedEx argues evidence shows nonretaliatory policy violations, not retaliation | No genuine issue on retaliation; summary judgment affirmed on retaliation |
| Whether Laing established pretext via comparator evidence | Laing lacked a proper comparator who was treated more favorably | Lawton, not on FMLA leave, was treated similarly; no comparator for retaliation claim | Court rejects pretext via comparator; affirmed dismissal of retaliation claim |
| Whether Laing was denied restoration to an equivalent position under FMLA | Laing was suspended and barred from site, not restored to equivalent position | FMLA allows restoration only to position as would have existed absent leave; could suspend | FedEx entitled to summary judgment; no equivalent-position restoration required given pre-leave scenario |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Yashenko v. Harrah’s N.C. Casino Co., 446 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2006) (FMLA retaliation analyzed under McDonnell Douglas framework; causal link shown)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext burden at third step; reaffirmed strict standard)
- Burdine v. Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (establishes pretext framework in discrimination cases)
- Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2000) (pretext inquiry requires more than mere disagreement with outcome)
- U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1983) (ultimate question is whether discrimination occurred; not proof scheme details)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (contextual considerations in discrimination beyond comparator evidence)