Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp.
659 F.3d 987
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Twigg employed by HBC from 1997 to 2008 as a Media Production Specialist in the TMDC.
- Twigg complained about race discrimination concerning coworker Teresa Cole and reported Schlegel's treatment of Cole.
- Twigg took FMLA leave for bunion surgery in 2008; MetLife short-term disability overlapped with FMLA leave per company practice.
- HBC approved initial FMLA leave through Feb 29, 2008, based on a doctor’s certification that did not specify duration.
- After communications about leave, Twigg’s status remained “FMLA pending” until March 14, 2008 extension; Twigg did not receive clear notice that leave was approved through April 17, 2008.
- Twigg was terminated on April 7, 2008 for three consecutive days of unreported absences, under HBC’s notice-of-absence policy; Sade made the termination decision with HR input.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Twigg proves retaliation under §1981 direct/mixed motives. | Twigg asserts direct retaliation for race-discrimination complaints. | HBC did not directly reflect retaliatory animus; evidence shows nonretaliatory pretext. | No direct evidence of retaliation; pretext insufficient for direct theory. |
| Whether Twigg proves §1981 retaliation via McDonnell Douglas framework. | Twigg relies on indirect evidence of retaliation. | McDonnell Douglas analysis shows no prima facie case. | District court's summary judgment affirmed for §1981 retaliation. |
| Whether Twigg proves FMLA retaliation under direct/mixed motives. | Twigg argues direct/mixed motives tied to FMLA leave. | Evidence is pretext; no direct reflection of retaliatory motive. | No direct proof of retaliation; judgment affirmed for FMLA retaliation. |
| Whether Twigg proves FMLA interference by termination during or after FMLA leave. | Termination interfered with exercising FMLA rights. | Twigg was terminated for violating notice-of-absence policy, unrelated to FMLA. | Termination unrelated to FMLA leave; Bones v. Honeywell controls; no interference. |
| Whether evidence of procedural deviations could establish retaliation. | Irregularities suggest ulterior motive. | Irregularities support inferences only indirectly; not direct proof of motive. | Procedural deviations do not establish direct retaliation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Total Petrol., Inc., 859 F.2d 1439 (10th Cir. 1988) (retaliation claims under §1981 applicable)
- CBOCS W., Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (2008) (mixed-motive framework in retaliation cases; some applicability to §1981)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes prima facie framework for indirect retaliation cases)
- Fye v. Okla. Corp. Comm'n, 516 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2008) (direct/mixed-motives approach; evidence requirements)
- Bones v. Honeywell Int'l Inc., 366 F.3d 869 (10th Cir. 2004) (employer may terminate for policy violation even if covered by FMLA; interference defense)
- Metzler v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 464 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2006) (FMLA retaliation framework; burden on employer to show non-FMLA reason)
- Smith v. Diffee Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 298 F.3d 955 (10th Cir. 2002) (FMLA retaliation context; construction of rights)
- Doebele v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 342 F.3d 1117 (10th Cir. 2003) (deviations from procedure; evidence of pretext)