Tatum v. Southern Company Services, Incorporated, 930 F.3d 709

Background

Tatum worked as an operations technician for SCS, promoted in 2013 and 2016, but received repeated warnings for unprofessional conduct (2013 and 2015 reviews, profanity, interruptions).
In late 2016–Jan 2017 he continued disruptive behavior: interrupted a safety meeting, received discipline, made a sarcastic radio remark, and was warned he could be terminated if conduct continued.
After a medical visit in January 2017 produced a high blood-pressure diagnosis, Tatum obtained a doctor’s release and SCS informed him he was eligible for FMLA leave and sent FMLA paperwork.
Tatum later disclosed (by text and photos) a previously observed potential safety risk; a coworker reported Tatum had held the photos for “job security.”
SCS fired Tatum on Feb 2, 2017 for continued unprofessional conduct and for failing to timely report the safety concern. Tatum sued for FMLA interference and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for SCS.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that even assuming estoppel or a prima facie FMLA claim, SCS offered a legitimate, non‑discriminatory reason for termination and Tatum failed to raise a genuine issue of pretext.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SCS is equitably estopped from asserting Tatum was not FMLA‑eligible	Tatum: SCS told him he was eligible and he relied on that representation when taking leave	SCS: No reasonable, detrimental reliance; Tatum was not covered and estoppel fails	Court: Assumed estoppel arguendo but ruled for SCS on other grounds; estoppel not necessary to decide affirmance
Whether SCS interfered with FMLA rights or retaliated for taking FMLA leave	Tatum: His leave/requests were protected and termination was causally linked to leave	SCS: Termination was for repeated misconduct and delayed reporting of a safety risk — legitimate, non‑retaliatory reason	Court: No genuine dispute that employer’s stated reasons were legitimate; plaintiff failed to show pretext
Whether timing of discharge (after leave) creates an inference of retaliation	Tatum: Timing plus prior promotions show employer’s suddenly changed view after leave	SCS: Years of warnings and progressive discipline preceded the leave; termination was not surprising	Court: Timing insufficient; employer had documented, prior warnings and reasonable good‑faith belief about Tatum’s conduct
Whether disparate treatment of coworkers shows pretext	Tatum: Coworkers who observed same safety issue were coached, not fired — inconsistent treatment	SCS: Coworkers did not have comparable discipline histories; employer had good‑faith belief of Tatum’s misconduct	Court: Differential treatment not persuasive because other employees lacked Tatum’s record; employer’s reason remained consistent

Key Cases Cited

Minard v. ITC Deltacom Commc’ns, Inc., 447 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2006) (equitable‑estoppel standard for FMLA coverage)
Caldwell v. KHOU‑TV, 850 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2017) (prima facie FMLA elements and evidence of disparate treatment can show pretext)
Richardson v. Monitronics Int’l, Inc., 434 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2005) (elements for retaliatory discharge and McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden shifting in discrimination cases)
Arban v. West Publ’g Corp., 345 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2003) (timing of termination after leave can support inference of retaliation where prior evaluations showed satisfactory performance)
Mauder v. Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris Cnty., 446 F.3d 574 (5th Cir. 2006) (no retaliation where termination followed repeated reprimands for attitude/performance)
DeVoss v. Sw. Airlines Co., 903 F.3d 487 (5th Cir. 2018) (employer’s good‑faith belief in misconduct suffices for termination defense)
S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., N.A., 315 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2003) (summary judgment may be affirmed on any sustainable ground in the record)