Miles v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500
347 F. Supp. 3d 626
D. Kan.2018Background
- Susan Miles, a teacher under an automatically renewing contract with Unified School District No. 500, was supervised by McKinley Elementary Principal Valerie Castillo.
- Miles suffered injuries in April 2016, applied for and received FMLA leave for the 2015–16 school year and additional approved leave through November 2, 2016, followed by an agreed unpaid leave through January 4, 2017.
- While on leave, Castillo required Miles to complete lesson plans and to come in to clean out her classroom; Castillo made disparaging comments urging Miles to return.
- On January 4, 2017—the day Miles was authorized to return—Castillo, individually or acting with the District, discharged Miles.
- Miles sued Castillo (and the District) alleging FMLA retaliation/discrimination under 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2); Castillo moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) raising: (1) not an "employer" under FMLA, (2) no protected activity pleaded, (3) no materially adverse action, and (4) qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Castillo can be an "employer" under the FMLA | Miles alleges Castillo supervised her, controlled terms of employment, required tasks during leave, and participated in termination | Castillo contends District (board) is the employer under Kansas law and individuals are not liable | Complaint plausibly alleges Castillo was an "employer" under the FMLA applying the economic‑reality test; denial of dismissal |
| Whether Miles engaged in FMLA‑protected activity | Miles applied for and took FMLA leave and had approved extensions and an agreed unpaid leave before Jan. 4, 2017 | Castillo argues Miles was not on FMLA leave when terminated and could not return at end of leave, so no protected activity | Allegations that Miles applied for, received, and relied on FMLA leave suffice at pleading stage; protected activity pleaded |
| Whether alleged conduct was a materially adverse action | Miles alleges Castillo, individually or with the District, discharged her and failed to return her to her teaching position | Castillo argues she did not terminate Miles and that comments alone are not materially adverse | Termination (as alleged) is a materially adverse action; dismissal denied on this ground |
| Whether Castillo is entitled to qualified immunity | Miles alleges Castillo violated clearly established FMLA right not to be retaliated against for using leave | Castillo relies on cases finding officials entitled to qualified immunity where facts were unclear or plaintiff exceeded leave | Right to be free from retaliation for FMLA‑approved leave is clearly established; Castillo not entitled to qualified immunity at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: factual plausibility)
- Metzler v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 464 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir.) (FMLA retaliation prima facie framework)
- Darby v. Bratch, 287 F.3d 673 (8th Cir.) (individual liability under FMLA discussion)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Saavedra v. Lowe’s Home Centers, 748 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (D.N.M.) (economic‑reality test and individual FMLA liability discussion)