Lisa Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges Inc
761 F.3d 314
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Lisa Lupyan, a CCI instructor, took medical leave beginning December 2007 after submitting a provider certification; CCI designated the leave as FMLA leave and mailed a written Notice (the “Letter”), which Lupyan says she never received.
- Lupyan returned to work in March/April 2008 with and then without restrictions; she was informed on April 9, 2008 that she was terminated for low enrollment and for not returning within the twelve-week FMLA period.
- Lupyan sued CCI for (1) interference with FMLA rights for failing to provide individual notice and (2) retaliation for taking FMLA leave; the district court granted summary judgment for CCI after finding the mailbox-rule presumption of receipt applied.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit considered whether the mailbox-rule presumption of receipt (for ordinary mail) was rebutted by Lupyan’s sworn denial and whether genuine issues of material fact remained on both interference and retaliation claims.
- The Third Circuit held that Lupyan’s uncorroborated, sworn denial that she did not receive the Letter is sufficient to rebut the weak presumption of receipt under the mailbox rule and create a jury question; it also found record evidence from which a jury could infer pretext on the retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCI provided required individualized FMLA notice (receipt of the Letter) | Lupyan: she never received the Letter and therefore lacked notice of FMLA limitations | CCI: the Letter was properly mailed and the mailbox rule presumes receipt | The mailbox presumption can be rebutted by Lupyan’s sworn denial; a genuine factual dispute exists and summary judgment for CCI was improper |
| Whether Lupyan was prejudiced by lack of notice (required for FMLA interference) | Lupyan: had she known, she would have expedited return and preserved her job | CCI: Lupyan received all FMLA leave and could not show prejudice | Prejudice is a jury question; evidence (timing of releases and statements) could support Lupyan’s claim of prejudice |
| Whether termination was retaliatory for taking FMLA leave | Lupyan: timing, inconsistent explanations, and departures from CCI policy indicate retaliatory motive | CCI: termination was legitimate due to expired FMLA leave and low enrollment/hiring freeze | A reasonable jury could find CCI’s stated reasons pretextual; reversal of summary judgment on retaliation claim warranted |
| Whether mailbox-rule affidavits (sender’s witnesses) suffice to establish receipt as a matter of law | Lupyan: sender’s affidavits are self-serving and, without corroborating proof (certified mail/tracking), are insufficient | CCI: mailroom and HR affidavits established mailing and justify the presumption of receipt | The court requires that the weak presumption from ordinary mail may be defeated by the addressee’s testimony; affidavits of sender alone did not entitle defendant to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Conoshenti v. Public Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2004) (employer must provide individualized FMLA notice)
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002) (no relief under § 2615(a)(1) absent prejudice from violation)
- Cappuccio v. Prime Capital Funding LLC, 649 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2011) (testimony of recipient alone can rebut presumption of receipt)
- McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Trust, 458 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 2006) (operation of evidentiary presumptions and the burden-shifting effect under Rule 301)
- Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U.S. 185 (1884) (origin of the common-law mailbox rule)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment and credibility determinations)