Mary Sisk v. Picture People, Inc.
669 F.3d 896
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Sisk, a former Picture People studio manager, took FMLA leave beginning June 3, 2007 after hip problems and surgery; her leave was certified as unpaid FMLA leave with up to 12 weeks available.
- Upon return to work August 20, 2007, a meeting with district and regional managers occurred where threats of quitting, questioning health, and claims that she was unable to perform duties were raised.
- Sisk alleges FMLA retaliation; Picture People argued no non-discriminatory reason was articulated, and the district court granted judgment as a matter of law after Sisk’s case-in-chief.
- The district court acknowledged Sisk could present a prima facie case but required more than a prima facie showing to survive trial, and ultimately granted JAML.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviews de novo the district court’s JAML grant, applying McDonnell Douglas framework and focusing on causation evidence.
- The court ultimately affirmed, holding that Sisk failed to show a legally sufficient causal link between FMLA leave and termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sisk established a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation. | Sisk asserts causation from temporal proximity between leave and termination. | Picture People contends no close causal link was shown beyond two months. | No reversible error; causation not established. |
| Whether the district court properly applied the McDonnell Douglas framework at trial. | Prima facie case should control if no non-discriminatory reason offered. | Defendant must articulate a non-discriminatory reason once challenged. | District court erred in treating prima facie as irrelevant; improper for this case. |
| What evidentiary standard governs retaliation in this context when only temporal proximity is alleged? | Temporal proximity should suffice if sufficiently close. | Temporal proximity alone is insufficient when a longer gap exists. | More than two months gap requires additional evidence of causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wierman v. Casey's Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (defines FMLA retaliation framework and prima facie elements)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (clarifies burden after employer articulates a nondiscriminatory reason)
- Smith v. Allen Health Sys., Inc., 302 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2002) (pretext and causation in FMLA/retaliation context)
- Hite v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 446 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2006) (temporal proximity standards for causation)
- Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. 2001) (guides proximity considerations in retaliation analysis)