Todd Ion v. Chevron USA, Inc.
731 F.3d 379
5th Cir.2013Background
- Todd Ion, a Chevron laboratory chemist, sought leave after a marital separation and sought information about FMLA/EAP in early 2009; supervisors were Ogborn, Dressler, and Kerns.
- Chevron placed Ion on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)/five-day suspension (Mar 16, 2009) for alleged performance deficiencies and excessive lunch breaks; Ion disputes timing and accuracy of written criticisms.
- While suspended, Ion contacted Chevron’s EAP, met a counselor and a licensed clinician who completed FMLA certification (Mar 23); Chevron requested a GO-153 medical-release form, which Ion refused to sign at the onsite clinic (Mar 25).
- Co-worker James Peel reported that Ion said he would fake a nervous breakdown to obtain paid leave; manager Melcher sent an email accusing Ion of "playing games" and asking for options (Mar 24).
- After the clinic incident and Peel’s report, Chevron terminated Ion (Apr 2, 2009) citing insubordination, failure to return after suspension, alleged falsification/theft of time records, and other misconduct. Ion sued under the FMLA for retaliation and interference; district court granted Chevron summary judgment on both claims.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment on the retaliation claim, concluding genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether Ion’s FMLA leave was a motivating factor and whether Chevron proved it would have fired Ion regardless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ion created a genuine issue that FMLA leave was a motivating factor in his termination | Ion points to timing, Melcher’s email referencing FMLA, termination letter mentioning failure to return after suspension, and clinic/GO-153 dispute | Chevron contends termination was for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons: absences, poor performance, Peel’s report about faking illness, removal of equipment, and clinic behavior | Genuine issue of material fact exists that FMLA leave was a motivating factor; evidence (Melcher email + other facts) sufficient to survive summary judgment |
| Whether Chevron articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for termination | N/A (not disputed on appeal) | Chevron advanced reasons including performance/attendance issues, Peel’s allegation, clinic incident, and removal of company property | Court accepted that Chevron articulated legitimate reasons (burden-shifting proceeds) |
| Whether Chevron proved as a matter of law it would have terminated Ion notwithstanding any retaliatory motive (employer’s affirmative defense under mixed-motive) | Ion argues Chevron’s pre-suspension discipline was limited to a PIP/suspension (not termination), Chevron failed to investigate Peel’s claim, relied on Melcher’s anti-FMLA email, and produced vague clinic reports | Chevron argues it reasonably and in good faith relied on employee reports and documented misconduct during suspension to justify termination | Chevron did not meet its heavy burden on summary judgment; material disputes (timing, lack of investigation, vague clinic evidence, Melcher’s email) preclude summary judgment for employer |
| Applicability of mixed-motive framework and causation standard | Ion proceeded under mixed-motive precedent in this circuit (Richardson) | Chevron did not contest mixed-motive analysis on appeal | Fifth Circuit applied mixed-motive framework (Richardson) and noted resolution would not change result even if but-for standard applied; declined to revisit applicability here |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Monitronics Int’l, 434 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2005) (applies mixed-motive framework to FMLA retaliation claims)
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (Supreme Court decision limiting mixed-motive application in Title VII context; discussed but not applied to change result)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (Supreme Court decision about causation standards in ADEA cases; discussed in analysis)
- Jackson v. Cal–Western Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2010) (employer reasonably may rely on coworker complaints; distinguished on facts)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (summary judgment standards and treating employer evidence and inferences in pretext/mixed-motive contexts)