Mindy Caplan v. Victorias Secret Stores Inc
704 F. App'x 152
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Mindy Caplan, an at-will employee of Victoria’s Secret, was terminated after two Facebook posts (the “Sterling” post and the “Airwrecka” post) were linked to her account.
- Caplan sued, asserting (1) § 1981 retaliation based on protected protest speech, and (2) FMLA interference and FMLA retaliation related to her use of paid time off for medical issues.
- Victoria’s Secret had a policy to terminate employees responsible for the posts; supervisors decided termination would follow if Caplan was responsible for either post.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Victoria’s Secret on all claims; Caplan appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing facts in the light most favorable to Caplan but not weighing credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sterling post and Airwrecka post constituted protected activity under § 1981 (retaliation) | Caplan: Sterling post protested race discrimination; Airwrecka was only intended as humor and not racist | Victoria’s Secret: Neither post constituted protected protest; at minimum Airwrecka was unprotected, and responsibility for posts justified termination | Court: Sterling post factual dispute exists, but Airwrecka is not protected; because Caplan was responsible for Airwrecka, termination was lawful — § 1981 claim fails |
| Whether Victoria’s Secret interfered with Caplan’s FMLA rights by failing to notify eligibility | Caplan: Employer failed to notify her of FMLA eligibility despite her use of leave and notice by email | Victoria’s Secret: Caplan knew her rights and did not request FMLA in 2014; she used PTO and merely informed manager | Court: Caplan had prior FMLA use and knew rights; she did not request or take FMLA in 2014 and suffered no denial of benefits — interference claim fails |
| Whether termination was retaliatory for invoking FMLA (FMLA retaliation) | Caplan: Termination closely followed use of paid time off for medical issues; causal connection exists | Victoria’s Secret: Decisionmakers were unaware of her 2014 PTO/medical issues; they focused on the Facebook posts and social-media policy violations | Court: No evidence decisionmakers knew of her medical leave; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (policy violations) shown; retaliation claim fails |
| Whether employer’s proffered reason was pretextual | Caplan: Employer’s stated reason (posts/policy violations) was pretext for retaliation/discrimination | Victoria’s Secret: Termination was based on neutral social-media and off-duty conduct policies applied to Caplan’s posts | Court: Caplan failed to show pretext; employer’s reasons were legitimate and nondiscriminatory |
Key Cases Cited
- Montone v. City of Jersey City, 709 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing summary judgment in civil-rights context)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment framework — movant’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (evidentiary standards for summary judgment and assessment of genuine issues of material fact)
- Est. of Oliva ex rel. McHugh v. State of N.J., 604 F.3d 788 (3d Cir. 2010) (retaliation burden-shifting framework)
- Capps v. Mondelez Global, LLC, 847 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2017) (elements of FMLA interference claim)
- Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pitts. Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2012) (elements and proof required for FMLA retaliation claims)
- Krouse v. Am. Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494 (3d Cir. 1997) (limitations of temporal proximity as sole proof of causation)
- Ambrose v. Township of Robinson, Pa., 303 F.3d 488 (3d Cir. 2002) (employer awareness requirement for using temporal proximity to infer retaliatory motive)