Leddrew Smith, Jr. v. City of Niles, 505 F. App'x 482

Smith, employed by City of Niles from 1989 to 2010 in utilities/records division, with a back injury causing intermittent absences.
City kept Smith in his role but reassigned some physically demanding tasks and later eliminated the records/engineer positions.
Barnes retired in 2008; City chose not to promote or replace his position, distributing duties instead.
In 2010, City discharged Smith and Jim Shipley as part of a broader workforce reduction, citing financial and efficiency concerns.
Smith sued in federal court alleging FMLA interference and retaliation; district court granted summary judgment for City, and Smith appealed primarily on the FMLA claim.
City requested multiple physician certifications and recertifications for Smith’s medical condition under FMLA; Smith challenged these requests as harassment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the recertification requests violated the FMLA	Smith argues six requests exceeded FMLA limits and interfered with leave.	City contends requests were within six-month recertification windows or due to changed circumstances.	Requests were within regulatory bounds; no interference.
Whether enforcing work restrictions (mail handling) violated the FMLA	Smith contends assignment to pick up mail breached his restrictions.	No violation; work restrictions were manageable with accommodations, and Smith could have divided the task.	No FMLA violation; assignment did not exceed restrictions.
Whether City retaliated by not promoting Smith after Barnes’s retirement	Elimination of Barnes’s position was designed to avoid promoting a medical-leave employee.	Promotion decision was driven by managerial choice and efficiency, not retaliation; evidence shows no pretext.	No triable issue; City’s decision not to promote was not retaliatory.
Whether Smith's discharge in the 2010 workforce reduction was pretextual retaliation	Discharge was a pretext to penalize FMLA-related absences.	Reduction was based on economic and operational factors affecting the utility department as a whole.	No pretext; discharge upheld as a lawful RIF.

Skrjanc v. Great Lakes Power Serv. Co., 272 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2001) (McDonnell Douglas framework for retaliation claims applied to indirect evidence)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for proving discriminatory actions)
Daugherty v. Sajar Plastics, Inc., 544 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2008) (prima facie case and pretext analysis for retaliation claims under FMLA)