616 F.Supp.3d 928
W.D. Mo.2022Background
- Plaintiffs are current or former Kansas City Southern Railway Co. (KCS) locomotive conductors and engineers who work on an around‑the‑clock, rotating on‑call system; employees are either “marked up” (on the on‑call list) or “marked off” (on leave and removed from the list).
- KCS’s FMLA entitlement calculation (adopted circa Sept. 2021) uses a rolling 12‑month average weekly hours × 12 to determine total FMLA hours, then subtracts every hour an employee is “marked off” for FMLA to compute remaining availability.
- Plaintiffs allege KCS miscounts hours (undercounting actual work), improperly charges every hour marked off as FMLA leave (rather than only hours actually missed), requires or treats leave in large increments, and places employees who return from FMLA at the bottom of the on‑call list.
- As a result, several plaintiffs received notices they had exhausted FMLA, used sick/personal leave or worked instead of taking FMLA, and some faced investigations or discipline (including terminations) tied to leave usage.
- Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order seeking injunctive relief (revising calculation method, one‑hour increments, pro‑rata accounting, restoration to prior on‑call positions, and reinstatement/expungement). The Court denied the TRO on July 21, 2022.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of entitlement methodology (12‑month average × 12) | KCS undercounts employees’ actual hours and ignored approved leave when computing entitlement | KCS changed practice to count approved leave and contends some plaintiffs would still be exhausted; voluntary change may moot claim | Court: Plaintiffs have a fair chance to prevail on this claim (KCS conceded it hadn’t counted approved leave and revised policy) |
| Availability methodology (counting every hour marked off as FMLA) | Counting all marked‑off hours overcharges leave; regs require counting only amount of leave actually taken and prorating variable schedules | KCS says employees should not mark off when unlikely to be called and its on‑call system is unique | Court: Plaintiffs have a fair chance to prevail; KCS’s method likely overcharges FMLA and conflicts with regulations requiring pro‑rata calculation |
| Placement on on‑call list after return (restoration/discrimination) | Returning employees lose accrued on‑call position and pay/opportunity, amounting to unlawful discrimination and failure to restore to equivalent position | KCS points to collective bargaining variations and analogizes to cases finding no meaningful loss of opportunity | Court: Plaintiffs have a fair chance to prevail on restoration/discrimination claim; factual issues preclude resolution at TRO stage |
| Irreparable harm necessary for emergency relief | Plaintiffs claim chilling effect, loss of irreplaceable time to care for family/health, and fear of discipline/termination | KCS argues monetary remedies and reinstatement are available under FMLA; plaintiffs haven’t shown imminent, unrecoverable harm | Court: TRO denied — plaintiffs failed to show the required irreparable harm to justify extraordinary injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Dataphase Sys. Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (four‑factor test for preliminary injunction/TRO)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (TROs are extraordinary and movant bears heightened burden)
- Hernandez v. Bridgestone Ams. Tire Ops., LLC, 831 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2016) (miscalculation of FMLA leave can constitute interference)
- Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 2012) (adverse action for exercising FMLA rights supports discrimination claim)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (movant must show likelihood of irreparable harm for injunctive relief)
- Sessler v. City of Davenport, 990 F.3d 1150 (8th Cir. 2021) (failure to show irreparable harm is sufficient to deny injunction)
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002) (FMLA‑interference claims require showing of prejudice/harm)
- Scalia v. Dep’t of Transp. & Pub. Facilities, 985 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2021) (intermittent/variable‑hours leave must be measured by comparing hours worked to scheduled hours)
- Mellen v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 504 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2007) (only amount of leave actually taken may be counted against FMLA entitlement)