Wendy Thompson v. Kanabec County
958 F.3d 698
8th Cir.2020Background:
- Thompson was Kanabec County’s long‑time Public Health and Health & Human Services Director and was placed on paid administrative leave after Mille Lacs County opened a child‑protection investigation based on allegations involving her family.
- Outside counsel interviewed Thompson, recommended termination to the five‑member County Board, and the Board delayed a final employment decision pending the child‑protection investigation.
- Thompson informed the county in late November 2016 that she needed surgery and requested FMLA leave; Mille Lacs County issued a maltreatment determination on November 25, 2016, and denied reconsideration on December 16, 2016.
- The Board scheduled a closed meeting to address Thompson’s employment; Thompson’s counsel then announced she was retiring, and the Board accepted her resignation effective January 10, 2017.
- Thompson sued under the FMLA for interference and retaliation (discrimination) and asserted multiple state law claims against Kanabec and Mille Lacs Counties; the district court granted summary judgment to Kanabec County on the FMLA claim, declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, and taxed costs to Thompson.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: no FMLA interference or discrimination established, state claims remanded, and costs properly taxed to the County.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference (failure to act on/notice; asked to do work; forced choice between FMLA and Board meeting) | Thompson contends delay, lack of FMLA notice, and communications/work requests prejudiced her FMLA rights and forced her resignation. | County says Thompson was already on paid leave/PTO so no prejudice; communications were nondisruptive and investigatory, not work that interfered with leave. | No interference: Thompson suffered no prejudice, and requested/required activities did not materially interfere with leave. |
| FMLA discrimination/retaliation (constructive discharge) | Thompson says County moved to force her out after her FMLA request and doctor’s note, creating intolerable conditions that compelled resignation. | County points to preexisting investigation and Board’s decision‑making independent of FMLA; Christopherson lacked termination authority. | No discrimination: no direct bias by decisionmaker and no constructive discharge or causal link to FMLA use. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state claims | Thompson wanted the federal and state claims decided together. | County relied on dismissal of federal claim and asked for costs; district court declined jurisdiction over state claims. | Affirmed: ordinary practice is to decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims are dismissed. |
| Taxation of costs | Thompson argued County was not a "prevailing party" and most costs related to state claims. | County argued it was prevailing because judgment was rendered in its favor and Rule 54(d) presumes costs to the prevailing party. | Affirmed: County was a prevailing party and district court did not abuse discretion in awarding costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massey-Diez v. Univ. of Iowa Cmty. Med. Servs., Inc., 826 F.3d 1149 (8th Cir. 2016) (explains prejudice requirement for FMLA interference and distinction between voluntary light duty and interference)
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002) (FMLA remedies and prejudice requirement)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for disparate‑treatment claims when no direct evidence)
- Garrison v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 939 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard for constructive discharge; intolerable working conditions)
- Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (2016) (clarifies constructive discharge standard)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (factors for declining supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims are dismissed)
- Jefferson v. Jefferson Cty. Pub. Sch. Sys., 360 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 2004) (defendant can be a prevailing party when federal claims dismissed and state claims remanded)
- Janis v. Biesheuvel, 428 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumption that prevailing party is entitled to costs and burden on losing party to overcome it)