837 F. Supp. 2d 834
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Ryan began at Pace in 1980 as an Inspection Technician; 2003 car accident left him unable to work for ~8 months.
- Returned in 2004 with medical restrictions; Pace manager said he would never receive mid-level pay because he couldn't do what others did.
- In 2008, Ryan injured again; took FMLA leave and short-term disability; Pace began disciplining for absences/late arrivals in Aug 2008.
- Pace advised further leave in Oct 2008; December 2008 doctor cleared return but Pace said he could not; Ryan underwent a functional capacity evaluation in Feb 2009 and was terminated Feb 20, 2009.
- Ryan filed an EEOC charge Dec 9, 2009; filed complaint Feb 22, 2011 asserting FMLA (Counts I–II), ADA (Counts III–IV), and ADEA (Counts V–VI); Pace moved to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA timeliness | Ryan's FMLA claims timely under 2-year limit. | Pace contends claims barred by statute. | FMLA claims timely. |
| ADA/ADEA timeliness | ADA/ADEA claims based on acts within 300 days; Morgan background supports timeliness. | Only timely acts may support ADA/ADEA claims. | ADA/ADEA claims timely as to acts within 300 days. |
| FMLA retaliation | Termination tied to protected FMLA activity and related requests for leave. | Termination due to inability to perform job duties, not retaliation for FMLA leave. | Dismissed. |
| FMLA interference | Employer interfered with right to reinstatement by denying return to work. | Employer acted based on capacity evaluation and job requirements. | Plausible FMLA interference claim; denied. |
| ADA discrimination/retaliation | Discrimination for disability and retaliation after complaint of discrimination. | Claims fail due to lack of proof of discrimination/causal link. | ADA discrimination and ADA retaliation claims survive. |
| ADEA discrimination/retaliation | Age-based discrimination/retaliation alleged. | No facts showing age or age-based conduct; ADEA claims fail. | ADEA discrimination and retaliation claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading requires plausible claims, not mere conclusory statements)
- Hentosh v. Herman M. Finch Univ. of Health Sci./The Chi. Med. Sch., 167 F.3d 1170 (7th Cir.1999) (pleading standards and favorable view of allegations at motion to dismiss)
- Caskey v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 535 F.3d 585 (7th Cir.2008) (FMLA protected activity includes requesting and taking leave)
- Goelzer v. Sheboygan County, Wis., 604 F.3d 987 (7th Cir.2010) (reinstatement rights under FMLA and limits where employee cannot perform essential functions)
- Casna v. City of Loves Park, 574 F.3d 420 (7th Cir.2009) (informal complaint may constitute protected activity for ADA retaliation)
- Turner v. The Saloon, Ltd., 595 F.3d 679 (7th Cir.2010) (ADA retaliation standard requires protected activity, adverse action, and causation)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (time limits for discriminatory acts under Title VII context apply to ADA/ADEA)
- Ames v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 629 F.3d 665 (7th Cir.2011) (prima facie framework for FMLA retaliation claims)