Monica Quintana v. City of Alexandria
692 F. App'x 122
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Quintana worked answering City of Alexandria phone calls; City told her position was temporary then would become permanent. The City later had Randstad handle payroll/administrative tasks but maintained control over hiring, firing, supervision, work duties, compensation, evaluations, and termination.
- Quintana requested FMLA leave on Jan. 9, 2014, after her husband was hospitalized; her City supervisor (Baker) told her she could take leave without losing her job for up to three months and did not direct her to Randstad for approval.
- Quintana informed Randstad of her leave but the City never provided FMLA forms or notice of FMLA rights; while on leave, the City terminated her by a single January 17 email from Baker stating she had been replaced.
- Quintana sued both the City and Randstad for FMLA interference and retaliation, alleging joint-employer status (primary and secondary employer theories) and, alternatively, that Randstad was primary.
- The district court dismissed all claims against the City under Rule 12(b)(6); Randstad later tendered an offer of judgment which Quintana accepted, leaving the City dismissal as the appeal’s focus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City is Quintana’s "primary employer" under FMLA joint-employer test | Quintana: City exercised exclusive control over hiring, firing, assignments, supervision, pay amount, evaluations and termination — making it the primary employer responsible for FMLA notices, leave, and reinstatement | City: As a matter of law the complaint fails to show City was the employer; Randstad handled payroll and administrative tasks so City cannot be liable as primary employer | Reversed: Complaint plausibly alleges City is primary employer under 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(c); several factors (hire/fire, assign/place) favor City and others are neutral or inapplicable, so dismissal improper |
| Whether Quintana pleaded viable FMLA interference and retaliation claims against the City (as primary or secondary employer) | Quintana: City interfered by approving leave, failing to provide FMLA forms/notice, and terminating her while on qualifying leave; termination shows retaliation | City: Even if joint employer, City could not be liable because obligations (notice, reinstatement) belong to primary employer; City argued estoppel from alternative pleading | Reversed: Complaint states interference and retaliation claims against City both as primary and as secondary employer; secondary employers can violate prohibited acts and have conditional/other obligations under regulations |
Key Cases Cited
- LeSeur-Richmond Slate Corp. v. Fehrer, 666 F.3d 261 (4th Cir.) (standard for accepting complaint allegations on 12(b)(6) review)
- Wag More Dogs, Ltd. Liab. Corp. v. Cozart, 680 F.3d 359 (4th Cir.) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (facial plausibility pleading standard)
- Yashenko v. Harrah's NC Casino Co., LLC, 446 F.3d 541 (4th Cir.) (distinguishing interference and retaliation claims under FMLA)
- Cuellar v. Keppel Amfels, L.L.C., 731 F.3d 342 (5th Cir.) (secondary employers can be liable under FMLA)
- Grace v. USCAR, 521 F.3d 655 (6th Cir.) (secondary employer liability under FMLA)