Priest v. Walmart Stores East, LP
3:24-cv-00163
S.D. Miss.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Nicole Priest was employed by Walmart for 18 years, holding various positions in Yazoo City, Mississippi.
- In late 2021, Priest took FMLA leave to care for her minor daughter with congestive heart failure and returned to work in February 2022.
- Upon return, her supervisors made negative comments regarding her FMLA leave, and her job code was changed without her consent, resulting in an alleged demotion and pay cut.
- Priest's attendance records were altered to reflect an early departure, causing her to accrue enough points under Walmart's policy for termination, even though she used protected PTO.
- Priest was terminated for violating the attendance policy, while another similarly situated employee was not terminated under similar circumstances.
- Priest sued for FMLA retaliation and breach of contract; Walmart moved for summary judgment on both claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA Retaliation | Termination was in retaliation for protected FMLA leave. | No evidence FMLA leave caused termination; points-based firing. | Denied summary judgment; jury could find retaliation. |
| Breach of Contract | Not directly argued in response to summary judgment. | Priest was an at-will employee; no contract breached. | Granted summary judgment; claim abandoned. |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. Circassia Pharms., Inc., 33 F.4th 814 (5th Cir. 2022) (standard for summary judgment materiality and disputes)
- Guzman v. Allstate Assurance Co., 18 F.4th 157 (5th Cir. 2021) (court cannot resolve factual disputes at summary judgment)
- Houston v. Tex. Dep’t of Agric., 17 F.4th 576 (5th Cir. 2021) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting applies to FMLA retaliation)
- Lindsey v. Bio-Med. Applications of La., L.L.C., 9 F.4th 317 (5th Cir. 2021) (FMLA retaliation cause of action and pretext analysis)
- Rodriguez v. Eli Lilly & Co., 820 F.3d 759 (5th Cir. 2016) (minimal showing required for FMLA causation; pretext inference)
- Lee v. Kan. City S. Ry., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) (comparator standard for disparate treatment)
- Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 969 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 2020) (comparator evidence may show pretext for discrimination)
- EEOC v. LHC Grp., 773 F.3d 688 (5th Cir. 2014) (prima facie plus pretext sufficient to survive summary judgment)