Mason v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32834
| D. Mass. | 2011Background
- Mason, a DEP employee from 1995 to 2008, suffered from asthma, hypertension, and other health issues impacting major life activities.
- In 2007, DEP allegedly increased Mason's workload, exacerbating his health conditions, and he informed supervisors of his impairments.
- Mason was hospitalized in October 2007; DEP allegedly failed to inform him of FMLA rights despite his condition.
- He received a written warning in November 2007 and was suspended later that month for alleged lack of veracity and performance issues.
- Mason sought FMLA leave in December 2007; DEP denied the request on multiple grounds, including documentation deficiencies.
- After a second medical opinion and a December 2007- January 2008 process, Mason was terminated January 31, 2008.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment bar on Count I against DEP | Mason argues FMLA personal medical leave claim is against state actor. | DEP contends Eleventh Amendment bars private claims for personal medical leave against a state agency. | Count I barred against DEP |
| Count V retaliation claim viability | Mason asserts retaliation for FMLA and possibly Weingarten rights. | Defendants contend no private right of action; Eleventh Amendment immunity and lack of Weingarten basis defeat claim. | Count V fails; barred |
| State-law claims against DEP | Counts II, III, VI, VII allege intentional and related torts against DEP. | MTCA and Eleventh Amendment immunities bar these claims; presentment requirements also not met for Count III. | Counts II, III, VI, VII barred |
| Individual capacity liability under FMLA | Individual Defendants may be personally liable for FMLA violations. | FMLA liability may be limited to employers; whether individuals can be liable is unresolved in First Circuit. | Individual Defendants may be liable in their individual capacities |
| Qualified immunity for individual defendants | Plaintiff argues rights were clearly established; defendants lack immunity shield. | Defendants claim qualified immunity should shield them. | No qualified immunity for the FMLA violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Laro v. New Hampshire, 259 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (personal medical leave immunity under the FMLA not abrogated)
- Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (S. Ct. 2003) (Congressional abrogation of state immunity for family-care FMLA rights valid)
- Mitchell v. Chapman, 343 F.3d 811 (6th Cir. 2003) (public employees may not be individually liable under FMLA in some circuits; split authority)
- Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 2006) (majority view: public supervisors can be individually liable under FMLA)
- Darby v. Bratch, 287 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2002) (public officials may be liable under FMLA in their individual capacity)