Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc.
691 F.3d 996
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Pulczinski worked as lead painter at Trinity in Newton, Iowa (Nov 2008–Mar 5, 2010).
- He has a disabled son, Anthony, with cerebral palsy and severe asthma; he sought intermittent FMLA leave to care for him.
- He was granted and used FMLA leave; initial absences November–December 2009 were designated or re-designated as FMLA leave, reducing attendance points.
- February 20, 2010, he notified of potential hospital visit due to his son's asthma; Trinity investigated his absence and suspended him pending investigation.
- A report by Roussin and Freeman recommended termination for attempting to slow overtime and suspected falsification of FMLA leave; Trinity’s president Cole approved the action.
- Pulczinski was terminated on March 5, 2010; district court granted summary judgment for Trinity, which this court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA claim—was termination because of son’s disability under 12112(b)(4)? | Pulczinski argues discrimination based on knowledge of son's disability. | Trinity relied on honest belief that Pulczinski discouraged overtime; no pretext shown. | Affirmed under honest-belief framework; action not proven discriminatory. |
| FMLA entitlement claim—misclassification of leave to Pulczinski’s benefit? | Pulczinski alleges denial of FMLA entitlements (e.g., designation of leave). | Misclassification lacked prejudice to Pulczinski; no entitlement harm shown. | Entitlement claim rejected for lack of prejudice and proper pleading. |
| FMLA discrimination claim—did suspension/termination retaliate against FMLA rights? | Pulczinski asserts adverse action tied to exercising FMLA rights. | Employment actions based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons; no pretext shown. | Dismissed; no causal link shown; actions upheld as nondiscriminatory. |
| Was the December suspension an adverse employment action under FMLA discrimination? | Suspension during investigation violated FMLA rights. | Suspension with pay pending investigation not a material adverse action. | No material adverse action; FMLA discrimination claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCullough v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scis., 559 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2010) (honest-belief rule governs when assessing pretext in ADA cases)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court 2000) (pretext can be shown by falsity of the employer’s explanation)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (Supreme Court 1993) (pretext framework in discrimination cases)
- Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (as above)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (2003) (‘because of’ meaning in ADA and causation standard)
- Quinn v. St. Louis Cnty., 653 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing entitlement vs. retaliation under FMLA)
- Stallings v. Hussmann Corp., 447 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2006) (FMLA interference claims require prejudice to entitlement)
- Sisk v. Picture People, Inc., 669 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2012) (recognition of FMLA discrimination claim under certain theory)
- Marez v. Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., Nos. 11-2354, 11-2356 (8th Cir. 2012) (FMLA discrimination analyzed under burden-shifting framework)