Michele Artis v. Department of Corrections
333815
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 12, 2017Background
- Artis, an MDOC employee, was hospitalized for bipolar disorder in late June 2012 and called a supervisor (Wallace) to say she was in the hospital and would not come in that day. She did not state how long she would be absent or call again.
- MDOC sent warnings on June 29 and July 3, 2012, and terminated Artis effective July 1, 2012, for unauthorized absence; Human Resources officer Asfada attested he relied on reports that she was a no-call/no-show.
- Artis submitted an FMLA request by facsimile dated July 9, 2012, stating the condition began June 28 and that she was hospitalized July 4–9; defendants had a record of prior intermittent FMLA leave in 2010 but denied knowledge of a June 2012 FMLA hospitalization.
- Artis sued alleging willful violation of the FMLA seeking reinstatement; defendants moved for dismissal/summary disposition asserting statute-of-limitations, lack of individual liability, and lack of knowledge by the decisionmaker.
- The trial court granted summary disposition, holding Artis failed to show a willful FMLA violation (so only a two-year limitations period applied), her claim was time-barred, there was no causal link shown between FMLA leave and termination, and individual defendants were improperly named.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness — applicable statute of limitations for FMLA reinstatement | Artis argued she pleaded a willful violation, triggering a 3-year limitations period | Defendants argued only a 2-year period applies absent willfulness and Artis failed to plead willfulness | Held: No willfulness shown; 2-year limitations applied and claim untimely |
| Willfulness — standard and application | Artis contended notice of hospitalization plus prior 2010 FMLA use sufficed to show willful/reckless disregard | Defendants said they lacked actual or constructive notice and acted without reckless disregard | Held: Willfulness requires knowing or reckless disregard; facts here (single call without duration, no repeated notice) do not meet that standard |
| Causation — link between FMLA use and termination | Artis argued defendants knew she was hospitalized and terminated her because of that | Defendants said decisionmakers (HR) acted on reports of unauthorized absence and lacked knowledge of hospitalization/FMLA | Held: No evidence of causal connection between use of (or request for) FMLA leave and termination shown |
| Individual liability & proper defendants | Artis named individual supervisors and HR employees as defendants | Defendants argued individual state employees are not proper FMLA defendants and lacked authority to reinstate | Held: Court concluded individual liability not established and individuals were improperly named (affirming dismissal on timeliness so did not further resolve all issues) |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (willfulness requires knowledge or reckless disregard)
- Dextrom v. Wexford County, 287 Mich. App. 406 (standards for MCR 2.116(C)(10) and (C)(7) review)
- Maher v. Int’l Paper Co., 600 F. Supp. 2d 940 (noting employer’s general knowledge of statute’s applicability alone does not establish willfulness)