996 F.3d 539
8th Cir.2021Background:
- CRC employed Tori Evans as the sole office assistant in Austin, MN; the role required regular in‑office presence (answering phones, greeting visitors, accounting tasks).
- Evans was diagnosed with reactive arthritis in 2016; her physician certified intermittent FMLA leave of up to two full days and two half days per month for flare‑ups and appointments.
- CRC had a written "no‑fault" attendance policy that assigned points for unexcused absences; ten points in a rolling 12‑month period mandated termination.
- Evans took intermittent FMLA leave repeatedly but incurred unexcused‑absence points when she failed to follow CRC’s two‑step notice procedure, sought leave beyond certified amounts, or missed work for conditions CRC deemed unrelated to the certified condition.
- After accruing ten points (including absences on March 22 and 24, 2017), CRC terminated her on March 27, 2017; the district court granted CRC summary judgment on ADA and FMLA claims, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA discrimination (discharge) | Evans: terminated because of disability | CRC: she could not perform essential function (regular, reliable attendance); termination followed policy | Affirmed — Evans could not perform essential job functions due to unreliable attendance |
| ADA failure‑to‑accommodate | Evans: needed more intermittent leave/part‑time schedule for flare‑ups | CRC: job requires in‑person attendance; Evans did not request additional accommodation; extra leave would prevent performance | Affirmed — requested accommodation would render essential function unmet; no valid request shown |
| ADA retaliation | Evans: points assessed/termination were retaliation for requesting extra FMLA | CRC: termination was for attendance; provided contemporaneous legitimate reason | Affirmed — no but‑for causal link; temporal proximity insufficient |
| FMLA entitlement (interference) | Evans: CRC denied FMLA benefits by assessing points for leave she was entitled to | CRC: denials justified because Evans failed notice procedure, sought leave beyond certification, or absences were unrelated to certified condition | Affirmed — CRC permissibly denied/properly assessed points for those absences |
| FMLA discrimination/retaliation | Evans: termination motivated by exercise of FMLA rights | CRC: longstanding attendance warnings, many prior approved FMLA uses without discipline; termination due to accumulated points | Affirmed — no evidence of discriminatory animus or pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (standards for burden‑shifting in discrimination cases)
- Lipp v. Cargill Meat Sols. Corp., 911 F.3d 537 (regular attendance as essential job function)
- Spangler v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Des Moines, 278 F.3d 847 (attendance and ADA essential‑function analysis)
- Hatchett v. Philander Smith Coll., 251 F.3d 670 (intermittent FMLA does not excuse failure to meet essential attendance requirements)
- Dalton v. ManorCare of West Des Moines IA, LLC, 782 F.3d 955 (FMLA interference principles)
- Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996 (distinguishing FMLA entitlement vs discrimination claims)
- Garrison v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 939 F.3d 937 (notice and interactive process principles; two‑step notice upheld)
- Moses v. Dassault Falcon Jet‑Wilmington Corp., 894 F.3d 911 (failure‑to‑accommodate elements)
- Brown v. City of Jacksonville, 711 F.3d 883 (FMLA discrimination framework)
- Malloy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 756 F.3d 1088 (prior use of FMLA without repercussions undercuts inference of discrimination)