Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co., LLC
681 F.3d 274
6th Cir.2012Background
- Seeger worked as a CBT network technician (1979–2007) and was in CBT’s unionized unit; he took FMLA leave with concurrent paid disability leave under CBT’s plan, which required medical-record access and light-duty work if able; CBT suspended and later terminated him for disability fraud after co-workers saw him at Oktoberfest during his leave; CBT’s investigation focused on inconsistencies between medical records and Oktoberfest appearance; district court granted CBT summary judgment on all counts, including FMLA claims, and Seeger appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FMLA retaliation claims are analyzed under the retaliation theory vs. interference theory. | Seeger contends interference and retaliation theories both apply. | CBT argues only retaliation theory governs in this case. | Retaliation theory governs; interference not required to prevail. |
| Whether CBT’s “honest belief” in disability fraud suffices to defeat Seeger’s FMLA claim at summary judgment. | Seeger argues the investigation was unfair and not based on honest belief. | CBT presented a reasonably informed, honestly held belief supported by facts. | Yes; CBT’s honest-belief defense defeats pretext and supports summary judgment. |
| Whether the temporal proximity between Seeger’s FMLA leave and termination proves causation at the prima facie stage. | Close timing suggests retaliation; timing alone may suffice. | Proximity is only a marginal factor; required to show a causal link. | Close temporal proximity satisfied the prima facie causal link. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arban v. West Publ'g Corp., 345 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2003) (FMLA retaliation framework; interference vs. retaliation distinction)
- Donald v. Sybra, Inc., 667 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2012) (McDonnell Douglas framework for FMLA retaliation with low prima facie burden)
- Hunter v. Valley View Local Sch., 579 F.3d 688 (6th Cir. 2009) (Summary judgment standard for FMLA claims; de novo review)
- Bryson v. Regis Corp., 498 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2007) (Pretext analysis under McDonnell Douglas; timing as factor)
- Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 1998) (Honest belief rule; required reasonably informed decision)
- Weiskopf (extracted from opinion), 503 F.3d 441 (6th Cir. 2007) (Related pretext and evidence considerations)