953 F.3d 831
5th Cir.2020Background
- Amedee worked as a process technician for Shell from 2012 until termination in 2016 and was subject to Shell’s attendance policy that counts unexcused absences/failed notifications as “occurrences.”
- Between Feb 2015 and Feb 2016 Shell recorded multiple attendance occurrences; Amedee received progressive discipline, including a written reminder on March 10, 2016 warning termination could follow further violations.
- The night of March 10–11, 2016 Amedee wrecked her truck while driving drunk, was arrested, and missed her scheduled shift; she later applied for FMLA leave for anxiety but did not seek FMLA approval for the March 11 absence.
- Shell investigated the absence and, while Amedee was on leave, terminated her employment and mailed termination letters in late March/early April 2016.
- Amedee sued alleging (1) FMLA interference (termination while on protected leave), (2) FMLA failure-to-restore (not returned to equivalent position), (3) ADA discrimination (termination because of disability), and (4) ADA failure-to-accommodate (refusing $100 chair); district court granted summary judgment for Shell; Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference/retaliation (29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2)) | Amedee: termination occurred while on FMLA leave and was motivated by exercise of FMLA rights | Shell: termination was for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason—failure to show up after written warning and incarceration for DWI | Held: Shell’s reason was legitimate; Amedee failed to show pretext, so retaliation claim fails |
| FMLA failure-to-restore (29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1)) | Amedee: she was entitled to reinstatement after FMLA leave | Shell: employer may show employee would have been lawfully terminated even absent leave | Held: Shell showed Amedee would have been terminated regardless, so no entitlement to reinstatement |
| ADA discriminatory termination (42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)) | Amedee: termination was because of disability or because she was regarded as disabled | Shell: Amedee did not show she was disabled or regarded-as in a manner that caused termination; termination was nondiscriminatory | Held: Amedee failed to make a prima facie showing and, even if she had, did not show pretext; ADA discrimination claim fails |
| ADA failure-to-accommodate (42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)) | Amedee: requested a $100 chair as reasonable accommodation; was terminated instead | Shell: district court observed Amedee did not prove she had an actual disability requiring accommodation | Held: Plaintiff did not show actual disability (regarded-as alone insufficient); district court’s sua sponte resolution was harmless; failure-to-accommodate claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Tatum v. S. Co. Servs., 930 F.3d 709 (5th Cir. 2019) (McDonnell Douglas framework for FMLA retaliation)
- Richardson v. Monitronics Int’l, Inc., 434 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2005) (burden-shifting on retaliation claims)
- Shirley v. Precision Castparts Corp., 726 F.3d 675 (5th Cir. 2013) (FMLA entitlement and reinstatement limits)
- Mauder v. Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris Cty., 446 F.3d 574 (5th Cir. 2006) (FMLA substantive/entitlement discussion)
- Bryant v. Compass Grp. USA Inc., 413 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2005) (employer need only provide nondiscriminatory reasons; mistaken conclusions not proof of discrimination)
- Delaval v. PTech Drilling Tubulars, L.L.C., 824 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2016) (sua sponte summary judgment notice and harmless-error framework)
- Feist v. La., Dep’t of Justice, Office of the Attorney Gen., 730 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2013) (elements of failure-to-accommodate claim)
- Newberry v. E. Tex. State Univ., 161 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 1998) (regarded-as disability does not obligate employer to provide reasonable accommodation)
- Trautman v. Time Warner Cable Tex., L.L.C., [citation="756 F. App'x 421"] (5th Cir. 2018) (employee’s failure to show up for work is a legitimate reason for termination)