Stanley v. Delaware North Companies Travel Hospitality Services, Inc.
1:16-cv-00834
W.D. Tex.Aug 14, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lauren Stanley worked as a cocktail server for Delaware North Companies (DNC) at Austin–Bergstrom Airport and suffers from ulcerative colitis treated by medication.
- A lapse in her insurance in Oct 2014 interrupted treatment; Stanley requested and received intermittent FMLA leave but was told to follow DNC call-in procedures.
- Between Dec 2014 and Jan 2015 Stanley missed multiple shifts; DNC contends nine were no-call/no-shows and suspended then terminated her on Feb 2, 2015.
- Stanley asserts termination was retaliation for exercising FMLA leave and also asserts disability discrimination under the ADA and TCHRA.
- DNC contends the termination was for failing to follow call-in policies (legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason), not for taking FMLA leave or because of disability.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the magistrate judge finds genuine disputes of material fact and recommends denying both motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was retaliation for taking intermittent FMLA leave | Stanley contends DNC considered FMLA-protected absences in the termination decision (direct evidence) | DNC says it terminated Stanley for failing to follow call-in/call-off procedures, independent of FMLA absences | Court finds disputed facts (including whether absences were no-call/no-shows and whether FMLA dates were considered) preclude summary judgment on retaliation |
| Whether there is direct evidence of FMLA retaliation | Stanley argues admission by HR that FMLA dates were considered is direct evidence | DNC permits proof it would have terminated regardless; any consideration of FMLA dates does not end inquiry | Court rejects that direct-evidence claim is dispositive and applies burden-shifting; material disputes remain |
| Whether ADA/TCHRA disability discrimination occurred | Stanley contends she was terminated due to disability and related leave | DNC contends she was unqualified when unable to work and was fired for call-in violations | Court holds genuine factual disputes about qualification, reason for termination, and whether DNC's reasons are pretextual — summary judgment denied |
| Whether the temporary lapse in treatment renders Stanley unqualified as a matter of law | DNC argues inability to show up for work made her unqualified | Stanley says she was able to perform duties once treatment resumed; lapse was temporary | Court concludes the temporary lapse does not as a matter of law make her unqualified; fact issues remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (employer may show it would have made same decision absent discriminatory motive)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standards and burdens)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine dispute and inferences at summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (court must view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (limits on courts making credibility determinations at summary judgment)
- Acker v. General Motors, L.L.C., 853 F.3d 784 (5th Cir. 2017) (employer may enforce notice-of-absence policy even when absences are FMLA-protected)
- Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 2011) (same principle regarding notice policies and FMLA)
- Richardson v. Monitronics Int’l Inc., 434 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2005) (applying McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting in FMLA cases)