Sabourin v. University of Utah
676 F.3d 950
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Sabourin was University of Utah program manager in EHS, funded by grants.
- In May 2006, Shaub prepared a reduction-in-force plan eliminating Sabourin's position due to grant shortfalls.
- Sabourin requested FMLA leave for childcare on June 6–7, 2006, approved June 8.
- Before leave, Sabourin was accused of mismanaging grant-related work and obstructing audit efforts.
- Sabourin left office files and electronic records unsecured; Shaub sought their return and initiated a disciplinary process.
- Sabourin was terminated on June 30, 2006, and later appealed the termination and related hiring ban.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RIF violated the FMLA through interference | Sabourin argues RIF tied to FMLA. | University shows RIF decided pre-leave and independent of FMLA. | No FMLA interference; RIF independent of leave. |
| Whether the RIF/termination were retaliatory for FMLA activity | Sabourin asserts retaliation due to leave and anger over leave. | University asserts legitimate nonretaliatory reasons; no causal link. | No substantial evidence of pretext; claims fail. |
| Whether Sabourin's firing for cause violated the FMLA (interference) | Firing after FMLA leave constitutes interference. | Firing due to disloyal/obstructive conduct while on leave, not leave itself. | Interference claim inadequately supported; dismissal proper. |
| Whether Sabourin's firing constitutes FMLA retaliation | Firing after requesting/going on leave shows retaliation. | Evidence shows legitimate nonretaliatory reasons; no pretext. | Retaliation claim fails; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Metzler v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 464 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2006) (interference requires causal link; burden-shifting for retaliation; defense may prevail on independent grounds)
- Berry v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 490 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment in retaliation claims when nonretaliatory reasons shown)
- Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) (McDonnell Douglas framework in retaliation analysis)
- U.S. Dept. of the Army v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (1983) (McDonnell Douglas framework applicability in discrimination cases)
- Daugherty v. Wabash Ctr., Inc., 577 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2009) (employer requests for access during FMLA leave can be modest and permissible)