Lovland v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.
674 F.3d 806
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Lovland was terminated by EMC in May 2009 for absenteeism after a corrective action noting 103.75 hours of unscheduled PTO and 8 hours of LWOP, excluding FMLA leave.
- EMC retrospectively designated some FMLA leave days in 2008; eighteen hours of leave were misclassified and should have been FMLA-protected.
- Bloomburg reviewed 2008 attendance using EMC's payroll system and consulted HR to determine whether corrective action was warranted, aiming to exclude FMLA leave from calculations.
- Lovland requested retroactive designation of certain FMLA days; EMC adjusted attendance records accordingly but maintained that non-FMLA absences supported action.
- Lovland argued the corrective action and reliance on eighteen hours of FMLA leave acted as a negative factor in her termination, constituting interference with FMLA rights.
- District court granted summary judgment, holding no genuine issue of fact that the decision would have been the same absent the FMLA leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2615(a)(1) interference applies to a negative factor scenario | Lovland contends interference via negative factor doctrine | EMC argues Stallings dichotomy controls; intent irrelevant for interference | Interference claim upheld as precluded by settled Eighth Circuit view |
| Whether Lovland's § 2615(a)(2) retaliation claim survives summary judgment | Prima facie causation shown; retaliation present via FMLA use | Non-discriminatory reasons for termination; no pretext shown | Summary judgment affirmed; no pretext evidence |
| Did the district court correctly grant summary judgment on timing/intent | Disputed whether Bloomburg reviewed records before Lovland requested more FMLA | Record shows review occurred with or without retroactive designation; no genuine fact issue | Yes; no genuine issue of material fact on timing |
Key Cases Cited
- Scobey v. Nucor Steel-Ark., 580 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for summary judgment in FMLA context)
- Smith v. Allen Health Sys., Inc., 302 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2002) (employee retaliation for FMLA leave actionable)
- Stallings v. Hussmann Corp., 447 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes interference vs. retaliation under § 2615)
- Wisbey v. City of Lincoln, Neb., 612 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2010) (discussion of interference/retaliation framework)
- Phillips v. Mathews, 547 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2008) (McDonnell Douglas framework in FMLA retaliation claims; concurring view cited)
- Wierman v. Casey's Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (retaliation analysis in FMLA context)
- Estrada v. Cypress Semiconductor (Minn.) Inc., 616 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2010) (affirmative discussion of pretext in FMLA retaliation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (classic pretext framework for discrimination cases)