197 F. Supp. 3d 100
D.D.C.2016Background
- Tyrita Thomas, a supervisory fingerprint specialist at MPD, sought medical leave beginning December 20–21, 2011 for depression/anxiety and submitted an initial, incomplete FMLA application (Dec. 31, 2011) and a completed medical certification on Jan. 19, 2012.
- Dr. Ball’s medical certification indicated Depression/Anxiety (work‑induced), need for two psychotherapy sessions/week with ~4 hours recovery each, and intermittent absences through mid‑February 2012.
- MPD placed Thomas on AWOL status on Jan. 1, 2012, and decided to terminate her on Jan. 13, 2012; termination letter dated Jan. 31, 2012, effective Feb. 15, 2012, cited neglect of duty, inefficiency, and abandonment.
- Disputed factual points: whether Thomas left a voicemail on Dec. 21, 2011 notifying her supervisor of doctor‑requested extended medical leave, and whether MPD’s calls attempting contact occurred/failed to reach her.
- OHR found MPD either failed to address or unreasonably denied Thomas’s FMLA request but found no probable cause for FMLA retaliation or sex‑discrimination retaliation; Thomas later sued in DC federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomas was "unable to perform" her job so as to qualify for FMLA/DCFMLA leave | Dr. Ball certified need for intermittent absences for psychotherapy and recovery time, making her unable to perform essential functions during treatment | Physician also said she could work "between treatments," so she was not continuously unable to perform job functions | Court: Denied summary judgment — certification of intermittent absences suffices to create jury question that she was unable to perform functions during treatment (FMLA allows intermittent leave) |
| Whether Thomas gave timely and adequate notice of need for FMLA leave | Thomas says she notified supervisor by voicemail Dec. 21, 2011 and submitted application; need became foreseeable only after Dec. 21 diagnosis, so later notice was practicable | MPD says she failed to provide required notice and did not submit a completed medical certification until Jan. 19, 2012; placed her on AWOL Jan. 1 | Court: Denied summary judgment — factual disputes about whether voicemail was left and whether need was unforeseeable make notice an issue for the jury; MPD’s early AWOL/termination despite pending certification raises triable issues |
| Whether MPD retaliated under FMLA/DCFMLA for seeking leave | Thomas argues AWOL designation and termination were pretextual and retaliatory given notice dispute and close timing after FMLA application | MPD contends termination was legitimate, based on AWOL, insubordination, neglect of duty | Court: Denied summary judgment — factual disputes and temporal proximity combined with inconsistencies permit a jury to infer retaliation for exercising FMLA rights |
| Whether MPD retaliated under Title VII / DCHRA for prior sex‑discrimination complaint | Thomas contends earlier EEO complaint and complaints about supervisor led to admonition, write‑up, AWOL and termination | MPD argues adverse actions were because she failed to report to work starting Dec. 21, 2011; time gap weakens causal inference | Court: Granted summary judgment to MPD — three‑month gap and lack of evidence tying termination to the sex‑discrimination complaint fail to raise a triable inference of retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (nonmovant must produce evidence to avoid summary judgment)
- Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (materiality standard in this circuit)
- Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236 (nonmovant’s burden to produce evidence for jury)
- Gordon v. U.S. Capitol Police, 778 F.3d 158 (FMLA retaliation framework)
- McFadden v. Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, 611 F.3d 1 (FMLA unlawful‑denial/interference distinction)
- Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 555 U.S. 271 (Title VII opposition clause covers reporting discrimination)
- Woodruff v. Peters, 482 F.3d 521 (temporal proximity alone insufficient to defeat summary judgment)