Lindsey v. Bio-Medical Applications
9 F.4th 317
5th Cir.2021Background
- Lindsey worked 17+ years at BMA, rising to Clinic Manager; her record was strong until 2016–2017.
- In 2016 she took FMLA leave following a house fire and her son’s hospitalization; she performed limited voluntary work while on leave and communicated sporadically with colleagues.
- Shortly after returning she objected to a coworker’s proposal to redistribute medication; within weeks she received her first-ever disciplinary form citing attendance concerns.
- BMA later issued a final written warning and, citing attendance and repeated late monthly catheter-tracking reports, terminated Lindsey on August 1, 2017.
- Lindsey sued for FMLA interference and FMLA retaliatory discharge, Louisiana whistleblower retaliation, and IIED; the district court granted summary judgment for BMA on all claims; Lindsey appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the FMLA interference and state whistleblower claims, reversed as to FMLA retaliation, and remanded that claim for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference: did BMA coerce Lindsey to work during FMLA leave? | Lindsey says BMA pressured/coerced her to perform duties while on leave, interfering with her FMLA rights. | BMA says any work was voluntary; no evidence it made work a condition of continued employment. | Summary judgment for BMA affirmed — no evidence of coercion or threatened adverse consequences. |
| FMLA retaliation: did taking FMLA leave cause her termination? | Lindsey says termination was causally linked to her FMLA leave; attendance and timing of discipline show pretext. | BMA proffers legitimate reasons: attendance problems and repeated late catheter reports. | Reversed and remanded — genuine disputes of material fact exist as to pretext for both proffered reasons. |
| Louisiana whistleblower (objecting to unlawful practice): did Lindsey object to an actual violation of law? | Lindsey contends she refused to participate in an unlawful prescription-redistribution practice. | BMA says no unlawful practice occurred; Lindsey only objected to a proposed practice. | Summary judgment for BMA affirmed — no evidence an actual statutory violation or ongoing unlawful practice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Monitronics Int'l, Inc., 434 F.3d 327 (Fifth Circuit case defining FMLA retaliation prima facie elements)
- D'Onofrio v. Vacation Publ'ns, Inc., 888 F.3d 197 (Fifth Circuit on when employer contact during leave constitutes coercion/interference)
- Caldwell v. KHOU-TV, 850 F.3d 237 (Fifth Circuit FMLA interference elements)
- S.W.S. Erectors, Inc. v. Infax, Inc., 72 F.3d 489 (Fifth Circuit rule limiting use of affidavits that contradict prior sworn testimony)
- Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., 398 F.3d 345 (Fifth Circuit discussion of but-for causation in employment cases)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court limiting mixed-motive framework in certain employment contexts)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court clarifying causation standards in employment retaliation claims)
- Encalarde v. New Orleans Ctr. for Creative Arts/Riverfront, 158 So.3d 826 (La. 2015) (Louisiana requires an actual violation of law to state a whistleblower claim)