Ruble v. American River Transp. Co.
799 F. Supp. 2d 1017
E.D. Mo.2011Background
- Ruble was employed by American River Transportation Company since 1998 in various engineering roles.
- In November 2007, he was demoted from chief engineer to assistant engineer on the John H. MacMillian Jr. live-on vessel.
- Ruble's 90-year-old grandmother was ill, and he claimed she had cared for him during his childhood; this relation is the basis for FMLA leave in loco parentis arguments.
- On April 10, 2008 Ruble learned of his grandmother's terminal illness and sought to leave the vessel to care for her; staff discussed possible relief and leave timing.
- Ruble left the John H on April 14, 2008 without authorized leave, was terminated, and the family traveled through New Orleans and Springfield; grandmother died May 18, 2008.
- The court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on several FMLA issues, including notice and in loco parentis considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claim is interference or retaliation under the FMLA. | Ruble's complaint alleges interference and retaliation. | The complaint only supports interference, not retaliation. | Complaint construed as interference only. |
| Whether Ruble provided adequate and timely notice of FMLA leave. | Notice given when he said his grandmother was ill and needed to go home. | Notice was not adequate or timely for FMLA purposes. | Material factual disputes exist; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Whether Ruble's relationship with his grandmother was an in loco parentis basis for FMLA protection. | Grandmother raised him and cared for him; evidence shows close relationship. | Plaintiff failed to clearly convey in the notice that grandmother cared for him personally. | Genuine factual disputes regarding notice and relationship facts. |
| Whether the notice was timely under FMLA if the need was foreseeable/unforeseeable. | Notice given within days of learning of need. | Timeliness contested. | Timeliness facts support Ruble; not dispositive on summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stallings v. Hussmann Corp., 447 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2006) (interference vs. retaliation; employer intent not required for interference)
- Wierman v. Casey's Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (notice triggers employer duties under FMLA; totality of circumstances for adequacy of notice)
- Phillips v. Mathews, 547 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2008) (notice sufficient to alert employer of possible FMLA leave)