O'Malley v. Trader Joe's East, Inc.
1:19-cv-03273
| D. Maryland | Dec 17, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Lisa O’Malley (62) was an at‑will employee at Trader Joe’s Annapolis for over 15 years and sued for ADEA, ADA, FMLA, and FEPA violations (discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA interference).
- Personnel record: repeated customer and coworker complaints over years, multiple written warnings, and a Final Written Warning on May 5, 2018 warning that further incidents could lead to termination.
- Store management decided to terminate O’Malley on June 27, 2018 after a June customer complaint; termination paperwork was prepared then but not delivered because O’Malley called out on June 27–28.
- On June 28, 2018 O’Malley sought FMLA leave for newly diagnosed anxiety/depression; leave was approved, she remained a paid employee, and the termination notice was delivered when she returned on August 29, 2018.
- O’Malley alleged complaints were fabricated and she was replaced by a younger, non‑disabled employee; EEOC issued a right‑to‑sue and she filed suit. Trader Joe’s moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Trader Joe’s on all counts, concluding the termination decision predated the FMLA request and that O’Malley failed to establish prima facie discrimination, disability knowledge, or causation for retaliation/FMLA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination (ADEA/FEPA) | O’Malley was treated differently and ultimately fired because of age and comments by supervisors | Termination was for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons: documented performance/customer complaints and warnings | Granted for defendant — plaintiff failed to show she met employer’s legitimate expectations or replacement by younger worker; no but‑for causation |
| Disability discrimination (ADA/FEPA) | O’Malley’s June 2018 diagnosis (anxiety/depression) made her disabled; terminated because of disability | No evidence employer knew of any disability when decision was made; performance-based reason existed | Granted for defendant — no showing of disability known to employer at time of decision and plaintiff not otherwise qualified |
| Retaliation (ADA/FEPA & FMLA) | Termination was retaliation for requesting/using FMLA and for requesting accommodation | Decision to terminate was made June 27, 2018—before FMLA request on June 28; termination was for performance issues | Granted for defendant — no causal link (decision predated protected activity) and employer gave nondiscriminatory reason not shown to be pretextual |
| FMLA interference (failure to restore) | O’Malley was not reinstated after FMLA leave | Employer approved leave but had decided to terminate before leave began; FMLA does not require restoration if termination would have occurred absent leave | Granted for defendant — employee would have been terminated absent leave, so no interference |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (summary judgment standard: courts view facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment: genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party must present more than mere speculation to defeat summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for employment discrimination cases)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (plaintiff must ultimately prove employer’s stated reason is pretext to prevail following McDonnell Douglas)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (employer’s burden to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (ADEA requires but‑for causation)
- Halperin v. Abacus Tech. Corp., 128 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 1997) (for ADA, inability to perform a particular job does not alone establish a substantially limiting impairment)
- Yashenko v. Harrah’s NC Casino Co., 446 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2006) (FMLA: employer need not reinstate employee if employer would have discharged employee regardless of leave)