Phillip Burnette, II v. RateGenius Loan Services
671 F. App'x 889
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Burnette, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, worked remotely for RateGenius for ~4 months after reporting dizziness and fainting episodes.
- In Dec 2013 he crashed his car; he told his employer a coughing spell caused it; police investigated possible DWI (not disclosed to employer).
- In April 2014 an ENT allegedly diagnosed him with syncope; Burnette notified RateGenius and HR requested a doctor’s note.
- RateGenius terminated Burnette on May 19, 2014, citing failure to provide documentation and alleged dishonesty about the accident.
- Burnette sued under the FMLA for interference (failure to notify of FMLA rights) and retaliation; the magistrate and district court dismissed both claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and denied leave to amend; Burnette appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding the complaints lacked plausible facts showing prejudice, causation, or a connection to FMLA-protected leave; denial to amend and dismissal with prejudice were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interference — employer failed to notify Burnette of FMLA rights | Burnette: employer’s failure to notify prevented him from exercising FMLA leave and caused prejudice (lost 12 weeks and job) | RateGenius: no leave was requested or at issue; employer sought verification and maintained work-from-home arrangement | Dismissed — alleged facts do not plausibly show prejudice or that employer’s conduct interfered with FMLA rights |
| Retaliation — termination for asserting FMLA rights | Burnette: termination was in retaliation for notifying employer of a FMLA-qualifying condition | RateGenius: Burnette did not request or take FMLA leave, so no protected activity occurred | Dismissed — complaint lacks plausible factual nexus between termination and protected FMLA activity |
| Leave to amend — denial of proposed amended complaint | Burnette: should have been allowed to amend to add facts showing prejudice and note submission timing | RateGenius: proposed amendments are futile and do not cure defects | Denied — amendment would be futile; proposed allegations still fail to state a plausible FMLA claim |
| Dismissal with prejudice — whether dismissal should be without prejudice | Burnette: dismissal with prejudice was improper without explanation | RateGenius: dismissal as frivolous under §1915 appropriately supports prejudice | Affirmed — frivolous dismissals under §1915 are presumptively with prejudice; no error in labeling dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Watts v. Graves, 720 F.2d 1416 (5th Cir. 1983) (accept allegations as true on dismissal when pleadings resolved)
- Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71 (5th Cir. 1995) (frivolous complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact)
- Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 1999) (review of frivolous-dismissal for abuse of discretion)
- Combs v. City of Huntington, Tex., 829 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2016) (abuse of discretion occurs when court relies on erroneous facts or law)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must contain more than conclusory allegations; plausibility standard)
- Lyn-Lea Travel Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 283 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2002) (leave to amend should be freely given but may be denied for substantial reason)
- Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., LLC, 234 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 2000) (amendment is futile if complaint would still fail to state a claim)
- Marts v. Hines, 117 F.3d 1504 (5th Cir. 1997) (frivolous or malicious dismissals under §1915 are deemed dismissals with prejudice)