557 F.Supp.3d 902
D. Minn.2021Background
- Mell worked for the Minnesota State Fair for >30 years as a finance supervisor and had positive reviews.
- She was diagnosed with cancer in Dec. 2019, had surgery Jan. 14, 2020, chemotherapy, and requested FMLA leave; her 12-week FMLA entitlement was confirmed to exhaust April 8, 2020.
- Mell’s physician later cleared her to work without restrictions (certificate showing an unrestricted return as early as April 13 and again June 22); the Fair instructed her to keep a June 22 return date initially because of COVID-19.
- When Mell attempted to return in late June 2020 she was reassigned from her desk job to manual labor (Floating Laborer), had hours reduced to part-time, and was terminated effective October 30, 2020 after refusing a separation agreement.
- Mell sued asserting MHRA claims (disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, reprisal) and FMLA claims (entitlement to restoration and FMLA discrimination); the Fair moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Court: denied dismissal of the FMLA entitlement/restoration claim; granted dismissal (without prejudice) of FMLA discrimination and all MHRA claims for failure to plausibly plead causation, entitlement to accommodation, or ongoing disability effects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA entitlement (right to be restored to prior position) | Mell: she was entitled to reinstatement to her former desk job after medical leave. | Fair: her position was eliminated due to COVID and/or she was unable to perform essential functions when leave expired. | Survives dismissal: pleading-stage record leaves factual gaps (ability and elimination); employer bears burden to prove the §825.216(c) inability/layoff defense. |
| FMLA discrimination (adverse actions because of taking FMLA) | Mell: demotion, hours cut, and termination were caused by exercising FMLA rights. | Fair: actions occurred months after it learned of leave—temporal gap defeats causation; reassignments were business-wide. | Dismissed without prejudice: plaintiff failed to plausibly allege causation (timing and other facts insufficient). |
| MHRA disability discrimination | Mell: cancer (including remission/record of impairment) qualifies as a disability and motivated adverse actions. | Fair: no ongoing/material limitation at time of adverse actions; Fair did not regard her as disabled. | Dismissed without prejudice: plaintiff plausibly alleged a "record of" impairment but not that the Fair took adverse actions because of a present or regarded disability. |
| MHRA reasonable accommodation & reprisal | Mell: reinstatement to prior position was a reasonable accommodation; she engaged in protected activity (leave/accommodation request). | Fair: Mell was released without restrictions so no medical need for accommodation; alleged temporal gaps defeat reprisal causation; position may have been eliminated. | Dismissed without prejudice: no plausible showing that restoration was needed because of disability or that adverse acts were causally linked to protected requests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must permit plausible inference of liability)
- Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996 (describing FMLA claim types)
- Bosley v. Cargill Meat Sols. Corp., 705 F.3d 777 (terminology for FMLA entitlement claims)
- Bloom v. Metro Heart Grp. of St. Louis, Inc., 440 F.3d 1025 (restoration/right and employer lawful reason context)
- Throneberry v. McGehee Desha Cnty. Hosp., 403 F.3d 972 (employer burden to show dismissal would have occurred regardless of leave)
- Sisk v. Picture People, Inc., 669 F.3d 896 (temporal proximity standard for FMLA causation)
- Battle v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 438 F.3d 856 (plaintiff inability to perform essential functions relevant to reinstatement)
- Liljedahl v. Ryder Student Transp. Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 836 (cancer and disability analysis under MHRA/summary-judgment context)
- Oehmke v. Medtronic, Inc., 844 F.3d 748 (ADA/MHRA distinctions re remission)