73 F. Supp. 3d 961
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Ricco worked as a full-time pre-admission RN at Southwest Surgery Center beginning January 2011 and was terminated by letter dated May 16, 2013.
- Ricco missed work beginning April 16, 2013, and between April 16 and May 6, 2013 faxed several doctor’s notes excusing her from work; the notes initially did not describe diagnosis or functional limitations.
- On May 13, 2013 a doctor’s note stated Ricco had sciatica, stress, and anxiety and the fax requested FMLA paperwork for the physician to complete.
- Southwest (through Cherny and Sweeney) contend the decision to terminate was made April 15, 2013 after an incident involving a missing coat; they say termination was instructed then and later delayed because Ricco was absent.
- Ricco alleges she attempted to invoke FMLA leave and that her termination was interference and retaliation for exercising FMLA rights; she also asserts breach of contract and promissory estoppel based on the employee handbook and tortious interference against Cherny.
- District court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all counts, finding genuine disputes of material fact on the timing, employer notice/designation of FMLA leave, and pretext/causal connection for termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference — did employer fail to notify/designate and thereby deny FMLA benefits? | Ricco argues her doctor’s notes and calls put Southwest on notice; May 13 request for FMLA forms triggered duty to designate and they terminated her before doing so. | Southwest argues Ricco never provided sufficient information about a serious health condition until after the termination decision allegedly made April 15. | Denied summary judgment — factual dispute whether employer’s duty to inquire/designate was triggered and whether termination denied FMLA benefits. |
| FMLA retaliation — was termination motivated by protected leave? | Ricco contends close timing, May 13 request for FMLA forms, and inconsistencies about whether termination decision was conditional show pretext and causal link. | Southwest contends termination decision was made April 15 for non-retaliatory reasons (coat incident) and would have occurred regardless. | Denied summary judgment — genuine issues of pretext and causal connection remain. |
| Breach of contract — is the employee handbook an enforceable contract promising leave/overtime? | Ricco contends handbook terms could reasonably create enforceable promises (12-week leave, time-and-a-half) and she relied on them. | Southwest argues at-will employment and handbook disclaimers negate contract formation. | Denied summary judgment — whether handbook created contractual obligations is a fact question for the jury. |
| Promissory estoppel / tortious interference — did defendants make enforceable promises or maliciously interfere? | Ricco alternatively seeks enforcement under promissory estoppel and alleges Cherny acted maliciously (motivated by noncorporate reasons) in pursuing the coat incident. | Defendants assert any investigation/termination was a legitimate corporate interest and officer immunity applies if acting for the corporation. | Denied summary judgment — factual issues exist as to reasonable reliance (estoppel) and whether Cherny acted with malice or for corporate interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Servs., 368 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment Local Rule 56.1 practice and statement-of-facts requirements)
- Phillips v. Quebecor World RAI, Inc., 450 F.3d 308 (7th Cir. 2006) (employee must convey seriousness of condition to trigger employer’s FMLA obligations)
- Burnett v. LFW, Inc., 472 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2006) (elements of FMLA interference and employer’s duty to determine whether leave qualifies)
- Kohls v. Beverly Enter. Wis., Inc., 259 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2001) (timing of termination can support inference termination was because of leave)
- Nicholson v. Pulte Homes Corp., 690 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2012) (speculation about timing insufficient to overcome employer’s nonretaliatory reason)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and reasonable jury verdict test)