Tanya Bosley v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.
705 F.3d 777
8th Cir.2013Background
- Bosley, employee of Cargill, missed February 2008 due to depression; she did not use call-in procedure; she did not notify for FMLA leave.
- Cargill terminated Bosley for three consecutive call-in violations between Feb 1 and Feb 27, 2008.
- Bosley sued for FMLA entitlement and retaliation; district court granted summary judgment for Cargill on both claims.
- Bosley relied on FMLA notice obligations and regulatory/constructive-notice theories.
- Court reviews summary-judgment standard de novo and analyzes FMLA notice requirements and excuses.
- Decision affirms district court’s dismissal of both entitlement and retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bosley provided required FMLA notice | Bosley’s notice was given via Pilcher to Crowell that Bosley was depressed. | Bosley failed to provide adequate notice; Pilcher’s statements are unreliable and insufficient. | No genuine issue of material fact; Bosley failed to provide proper notice. |
| Whether extraordinary circumstances excused notice | Notice delay acceptable under extraordinary-circumstances regulation. | No extraordinary circumstances; delay not excused. | Regulatory exception not satisfied; notice not timely. |
| Whether constructive notice can satisfy notice obligation | Bosley’s conduct could place Cargill on constructive notice. | Constructive notice rejected under Scobey framework. | No constructive-notice exception; insufficient evidence. |
| Whether Bosley meets prima facie case for retaliation | Failure to provide notice should not bar retaliation claim. | No protected activity since notice never occurred; termination not retaliatory. | No prima facie case for retaliation. |
| Whether district court properly granted summary judgment on entitlement/retaliation | Record shows potential FMLA coverage and notice. | Proper application of notice doctrine; no coverage. | Affirmed; district court correct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rynders v. Williams, 650 F.3d 1188 (8th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment de novo standard; proper weighing of facts)
- Scobey v. Nucor Steel-Arkansas, 580 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2009) (rigorous notice standard; employee must indicate need and reason for leave)
- Brown v. Kansas City Freightliner Sales, Inc., 617 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2010) (before FMLA protection, employee must notify employer of possible leave)
- Murphy v. FedEx Nat'l LTL, Inc., 618 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2010) (notice obligation essential to FMLA protection)
- Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2005) (employee must provide adequate notice of need for leave)
- Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 2012) (clarifies FMLA entitlement, retaliation distinctions; constructive-notice concerns)