654 F. App'x 415
11th Cir.2016Background
- Victor Brisk sued Shoreline Foundation and James Royo under the FMLA after taking FMLA leave, alleging retaliation (demotion and termination) and also raising a supplemental state worker’s-comp claim that was later dismissed.
- District court granted summary judgment for Shoreline on the FMLA claims; Brisk appealed only the FMLA rulings.
- Shoreline demoted Brisk after he returned from FMLA leave, citing his refusal to provide the company bank account password as the nondiscriminatory reason.
- Shoreline terminated Brisk roughly four months after his FMLA leave ended, citing poor work performance as an intervening cause.
- Brisk did not plead an FMLA interference claim in his complaint and did not move to amend the complaint to add one during summary judgment proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shoreline retaliated by demoting Brisk after FMLA leave | Demotion was retaliation for exercising FMLA rights | Demotion was for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (refusal to give bank password) | Demotion summary judgment affirmed: employer offered legitimate reason; plaintiff failed to show pretext |
| Whether Shoreline retaliated by terminating Brisk after FMLA leave | Termination was causally connected to FMLA leave (retaliation) | Termination occurred four months later and followed poor performance (intervening cause) | Termination summary judgment affirmed: temporal gap and intervening misconduct broke causal link |
| Whether plaintiff can proceed on an FMLA interference claim not pleaded | Brisk contends interference claim should be considered | Shoreline argues no interference claim was pled; plaintiff did not amend complaint | Court affirmed summary judgment: interference claim not pled and may not be raised at summary judgment stage |
| Whether district court properly dismissed supplemental state worker’s-comp claim | (Not challenged on appeal) | (Not challenged on appeal) | Dismissal of supplemental claim not contested and therefore abandoned on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Strickland v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Birmingham, 239 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2001) (distinguishing FMLA interference and retaliation claims)
- Martin v. Brevard Cnty. Pub. Sch., 543 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008) (McDonnell Douglas framework for FMLA retaliation and burden-shifting)
- Hurlbert v. St. Mary’s Health Care Sys., Inc., 439 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2006) (temporal proximity can establish causation)
- Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (temporal proximity must be very close to prove causation)
- Higdon v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2004) (substantial delay undermines retaliation claim absent other evidence of causation)
- Fleming v. Boeing, 120 F.3d 242 (11th Cir. 1997) (intervening misconduct breaks causal link)
- Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Comms., 738 F.2d 1181 (11th Cir. 1984) (employer’s articulated reason need not be wise, only nondiscriminatory)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (pretext requires showing reason was false and discriminatory intent was actual motive)
- Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2004) (cannot amend complaint via opposition brief; must follow Rule 15)
- Sams v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union, 866 F.2d 1380 (11th Cir. 1989) (Rule 8 notice-pleading principles)