Lonny Acker v. General Motors, L.L.C.
853 F.3d 784
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Lonny Acker, a GM electrician, was certified for intermittent FMLA leave for acute iron-deficiency anemia; Sedgwick (GM’s administrator) approved intermittent FMLA from Nov. 11, 2014 to May 11, 2015.
- GM (by collective bargaining) had a detailed attendance policy (Doc. 8) requiring call-in at least 30 minutes before shift and progressive discipline for unexcused "instances," including unpaid layoff and eventual termination.
- Sedgwick sent employees approved for intermittent FMLA a letter instructing dual notice: (1) call GM Absence Call Line at least 30 minutes before shift and select the FMLA option, and (2) call GM Benefits & Services by end of shift to report the FMLA absence.
- Acker failed to follow the timing requirements on multiple dates (Nov. 14, 22, 23; Dec. 6, 8), phone records confirmed untimely or missing calls, and GM issued progressive unpaid layoff discipline consistent with Doc. 8 (some earlier absences were later excused when timely FMLA approval was obtained).
- Acker sued for FMLA interference and retaliation and for disability discrimination under the ADA and TCHRA; the district court granted summary judgment for GM, and Acker appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference — whether discipline for untimely call-ins unlawfully denied FMLA rights | Acker: his calls (though untimely) gave reasonable notice of unforeseeable FMLA absences and create fact issues | GM: regs require compliance with employer’s usual notice procedures absent unusual circumstances; Acker failed to comply and adduced no unusual circumstances | Court: Affirmed for GM; Acker did not show unusual circumstances to excuse noncompliance under 29 C.F.R. § 825.303(c) |
| FMLA retaliation — whether disciplinary layoff was retaliatory for seeking FMLA | Acker: discipline was motivated by his request/use of FMLA | GM: discipline resulted from failure to follow Doc. 8 call-in rules, not from requesting FMLA; Acker remained employed and later complied | Court: No prima facie retaliation; causal link lacking; affirmed |
| ADA / TCHRA accommodation — whether FMLA requests constituted ADA reasonable accommodation | Acker: his FMLA requests also sought reasonable accommodation for disability | GM: FMLA and ADA are distinct; requesting FMLA alone is not a request to be accommodated to perform essential job functions | Court: Requesting FMLA is not a request for ADA accommodation; Acker did not request an accommodation or show denial of one; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. Texas Dep’t of Aging & Disability Servs., 781 F.3d 764 (5th Cir.) (defines interference standard under FMLA)
- Srouder v. Dana Light Axle Mfg., LLC, 725 F.3d 608 (6th Cir.) (employer may condition FMLA leave on compliance with usual notice procedures)
- Saenz v. Harlingen Med. Ctr., L.P., 613 F.3d 576 (5th Cir.) (pre-2009 regulation case; discussed regulatory changes affecting notice analysis)
- Millea v. Metro–North R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154 (2d Cir.) (timely, though indirect, notice can suffice; factually distinct and pre-2009 regs)
- Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987 (10th Cir.) (employer need not violate FMLA when enforcing call-in policies)
- Navarro v. Pfizer Corp., 261 F.3d 90 (1st Cir.) (distinguishes FMLA leave from ADA reasonable accommodation)