899 F. Supp. 2d 193
D. Conn.2012Background
- Wanamaker worked for Westport Public Schools 2000–2011 as a computer teacher, tenure obtained in 2004.
- She went on maternity leave in 2009 due to a complicated pregnancy and spinal disability.
- Her daughter was born with a serious congenital heart defect requiring future surgery.
- Before the 2009–2010 school year, HR indicated her position would be held if she needed medical leave; a 30–60 day leave was contemplated.
- Instead of returning to her computer-teacher role, Wanamaker alleges she was replaced by non-disabled staff and later offered non-equivalent positions.
- She was ultimately terminated on April 27, 2011 after a termination hearing, while alleging false grounds and improper process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Landon has individual FMLA liability as a supervisor | Wanamaker contends Landon is an employer under FMLA 4(A)(ii)(I). | Landon argues public employees lack individual FMLA liability or must rely on immunity. | Landon is liable as an FMLA supervisor under the statute. |
| Whether Wanamaker plausibly stated FMLA interference | Wanamaker alleges she was not reinstated to her original or equivalent position after FMLA leave. | Defendants argue the offered positions were not equivalent or that interference is not pleadable. | Plaintiff states a plausible FMLA interference claim; dismissal denied. |
| Whether Wanamaker plausibly stated FMLA retaliation | Wanamaker contends transfers and termination were motivated by FMLA leave. | Defendants argue insufficient evidence of discriminatory motive at pleading stage. | Plaintiff states a prima facie FMLA retaliation claim; dismissal denied. |
| Whether Wanamaker's ADA claim is viable given lack of disability proof | Wanamaker alleges transverse myelitis qualifies as a disability under ADA/ADAAA. | Defendant argues no substantial limitation of a major life activity shown; pregnancy not typically a disability. | ADA claims dismissed without prejudice; plaintiff may amend to show disability or extent of limitation. |
| Whether CFEPA claims survive given chronic disability standard and absence of explicit chronicity | Wanamaker asserts chronic disability and denial of reinstatement under CFEPA §46a-60(a)(7). | Defendants contend lack of chronicity and improper framing; 46a-60 claims require explicit chronic impairment. | CFEPA §46a-60(a)(1) claim dismissed without prejudice; §46a-60(a)(7) claim denied but may proceed with amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Westchester County, 769 F.Supp.2d 448 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (public agency supervisors may bear FMLA liability under 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4)(A)(ii))
- Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174 (5th Cir.2006) (individuals acting in interest of employer may be liable under FMLA)
- Morrow v. Putnam, 142 F.Supp.2d 1271 (D.Nev.2001) (recursive definition under FMLA for supervisory personnel; public agency employer possible)
- Sista v. CDC Ixis North America, Inc., 445 F.3d 161 (2d Cir.2006) (FMLA leave and reinstatement rights; interference/retaliation distinction)
- Potenza v. City of New York, 365 F.3d 165 (2d Cir.2004) (two distinct FMLA claims: interference and retaliation; McDonnell Douglas framework for retaliation)