Walpool v. Frymaster L L C
5:17-cv-00558
W.D. La.Nov 16, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Fred Walpool worked for Frymaster from 1994 and requested intermittent FMLA leave in late August 2015 to transport his wife for post-stroke therapy.
- Frymaster approved intermittent FMLA leave effective September 4, 2015 through October 23, 2015.
- On September 8, 2015—four days after approval—Frymaster terminated Walpool for being "absent without notice."
- Walpool sued under the FMLA alleging interference with FMLA rights and retaliation, seeking lost wages/benefits and liquidated damages; he later dismissed a co-defendant, Manitowoc.
- Frymaster moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Walpool failed to plead facts plausibly supporting his claims and that emotional-distress damages are not recoverable under the FMLA.
- The court denied dismissal of the interference and retaliation claims but granted dismissal of Walpool’s claim for compensatory emotional-distress damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walpool sufficiently pleaded an FMLA interference claim | Walpool alleged he requested and was approved for intermittent FMLA leave and complied with employer policies, yet was terminated | Frymaster argued Walpool failed to allege proper notice for the specific absence | Denied dismissal — allegations that leave was requested, approved, and that he complied with procedures suffice at pleading stage |
| Whether Walpool sufficiently pleaded an FMLA retaliation claim | Walpool alleged protected activity (request/approval of leave) and termination four days later, supporting causation | Frymaster disputed that Walpool engaged in protected activity and challenged causation | Denied dismissal — temporal proximity (four days) plausibly establishes causal link for prima facie case |
| Proper legal standard for pleading FMLA retaliation | Use McDonnell Douglas prima facie framework as applied in Fifth Circuit caselaw | Frymaster urged a stricter statutory reading of "oppos[ing] any practice" language | Court applied Fifth Circuit prima facie approach and found Walpool’s allegations adequate under either formulation |
| Recovery of emotional-distress damages under FMLA | Walpool alleged emotional distress but conceded such damages are not recoverable | Frymaster sought dismissal of emotional-distress damages claim | Granted — FMLA remedies are limited to monetary losses (wages, benefits); emotional-distress damages not available |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (notice-pleading in employment discrimination suits)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for prima facie discrimination/retaliation cases)
- Hunt v. Rapides Healthcare Sys., 277 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2001) (Fifth Circuit FMLA standards)
- Acker v. General Motors, LLC, 853 F.3d 784 (5th Cir. 2017) (employer may require adherence to usual leave procedures; discipline for failure does not constitute interference absent unusual circumstances)
- Caldwell v. KHOU-TV, 850 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2017) (elements of FMLA interference claim)
- Evans v. City of Houston, 246 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2001) (temporal proximity can establish causation for retaliation)