Shaffer v. AMERICAN MEDICAL ASS'N
662 F.3d 439
7th Cir.2011Background
- Shaffer, AMA employee in charge of leadership communications, was terminated after requesting knee surgery leave under FMLA; AMA claimed timing unrelated to leave.
- Budget downturn in 2008 prompted downsizing; initial plan targeted Friedman’s position, with Shaffer’s position not intended for elimination.
- Shaffer informed AMA of planned knee-replacement surgery in January 2009, requesting four to six weeks of leave; shortly after, Lynch reversed prior plan and decided to terminate Shaffer instead of Friedman.
- Lynch sent an email suggesting Shaffer’s upcoming leave would have no immediate negative impact, signaling a change in who would be terminated.
- Shaffer alleged that district counsel notes and internal memoranda were backdated or manipulated to create a paper trail; AMA asserted privilege and lack of pretext.
- District court granted summary judgment for AMA; on appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact on FMLA claim and separately addressed attorney-client privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viability of FMLA claim | Shaffer could show his leave request motivated termination. | Decision was downsizing unrelated to leave; timing incidental. | Yes, a reasonable jury could find FMLA interference/retaliation. |
| Hours prerequisite for FMLA protection | Shaffer exceeded 1,250 hours in prior year; eligible for FMLA. | Hours data not explicit in record; AMA admitted over 1,250 hours. | Met requirement; eligibility established. |
| Evidence handling and waiver | November 30 email and related records are admissible and probative of pretext. | Certain statements and emails should be treated with caution per local rules and privilege. | Record viewed in Shaffer’s favor; evidence could support pretext inferences. |
| Attorney-client privilege and crime-fraud exception | Memorandum may be privileged; crime-fraud exception not shown. | Document might be unprivileged or tainted by fraud. | Privilege protected; crime-fraud exception did not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goelzer v. Sheboygan Cnty., Wis., 604 F.3d 987 (7th Cir.2010) (distinguishes interference vs. retaliation in FMLA)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (S. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine issues for trial)
- Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Prot. Dist., 604 F.3d 490 (7th Cir.2010) (requires plausible factual inferences for trials; not mere speculation)
- Simple v. Walgreen Co., 511 F.3d 668 (7th Cir.2007) (inconsistencies in explanations support pretext)
- Lewis v. School Dist. #70, 523 F.3d 730 (7th Cir.2008) (direct method for retaliation showing discriminatory motivation)
- Brunker v. Schwan's Home Serv., Inc., 583 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir.2009) (pretext via backdating and timing evidence relevant to termination)
- BDO Seidman, LLP, 492 F.3d 806 (7th Cir.2007) (attorney-client privilege scope and limitations; crime-fraud exception)
- United States v. Boender, 649 F.3d 650 (7th Cir.2011) (crime-fraud prima facie showing and district court’s role)
- U.S. v. White, 950 F.2d 426 (7th Cir.1991) (burden on privilege claimant to establish applicability)