David Mac SPARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUNSHINE MILLS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-14922
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 12, 2014.
Taffi S. Stewart, Bryan Andrew Grayson, E. Britton Monroe, Lloyd Gray Whitehead & Monroe, PC, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
David Mac Sparks appeals summary judgment granted to Sunshine Mills, Inc. (“Sunshine“) on his retaliatory-discharge claim, brought under
I. BACKGROUND
Sunshine, a pet-food manufacturing company, owns and operates a plant in Red Bay, Alabama. Sparks began working at
Sunshine does not have a written disciplinary policy. Instead, it generally follows a “three write-up rule.” R. at 208. Under that rule, an employee typically receives three critical write-ups before being terminated. Holland and Suiter testified, however, that employees are not fired automatically after receiving three write-ups, nor are employees guaranteed future employment by virtue of not having violated the three write-up policy. The Plant Manager, Suiter, had discretion to terminate employees based on the nature and severity of their infractions. During depositions, Sparks testified he understood that any actions jeopardizing product quality could lead to disciplinary action, including termination.
On September 17, 2009, Holland issued Sparks a write-up for running feed at the wrong density, a production error that could have resulted in termination had Sparks not improved his performance. On April 19, 2010, Sparks allegedly received another write-up after he improperly ran feed and failed to make necessary adjustments, which caused the feed to blow apart. Sparks contested the validity of the write-up, however, because it was unsigned by any supervisor.
While sweeping at work, on June 7, 2010, Sparks stepped backward into a hole and twisted his ankle. He saw a doctor the same day, received an ankle brace and pain medication, and returned to work a few days later with no restrictions. Sparks subsequently filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits.
On July 7, 2010, Sparks returned to the doctor, who directed him to continue using the ankle brace and taking medication. The doctor also directed Sparks to attend physical therapy. During his deposition, Sparks testified he did not discuss the possibility of ankle surgery with his doctor during the July 7 visit. In a later declaration, however, Sparks changed his testimony and stated he had discussed the possibility of surgery with his doctor on July 7.
On July 27, 2010, Sparks received another write-up for failing to adjust the feed flow on the trolley, which caused the bed to run over onto a catwalk and locked up the trolley. Sparks disputed in the district court that the July 27 incident constituted a production error on his part, because the trolley already had been locked up, when he started the machine.
On July 28, 2010, Sparks again saw his doctor, who ordered an MRI and a nerve conduction test to determine whether Sparks would need surgery. Sparks testified that he told Myrick later that day that “it was looking like it was very possible [he was] going to have to have surgery.” R. at 253. Sparks asserted he informed Holland of his possible need for surgery the next day, on July 29, 2010. Sparks could not recall whether he informed Suiter of his ankle injury or his possible need for surgery. Sparks testified he did not specifically request FMLA leave for possible surgery.
On August 3, 2010, Sparks was written up for another incident involving feed qual-
On August 4, 2010, Sparks took the day off to receive an MRI on his ankle. When he returned to work on August 5, 2010, Sunshine terminated his employment. Sunshine asserted it had terminated him for running bad feed and for failing to take steps he had taken as a matter of routine for years.
On April 27, 2011, Sparks executed a Petition to Approve Worker‘s Compensation Settlement Agreement with Sunshine, which stated the following:
6. Plaintiff and defendant have agreed upon, subject to court approval, a lump sum settlement of $2,200.00. This settlement is based upon the permanent partial disability rating to the leg. This amount shall be accepted by the employee as a full and final settlement of all claims of the employee for compensation benefits, whether in the nature of temporary partial or total; permanent partial or total; and or past, present or future vocational rehabilitation benefits.
. . . .
8. Plaintiff understands that this settlement, if approved, is a compromise of all claims which Plaintiff may now have or may have in the future as a result of this injury, and that no further Worker‘s Compensation benefits, vocational rehabilitation or vocational rehabilitation expenses will be paid as a result of the aforesaid accident and injury.
R. at 556. An Alabama circuit judge approved the settlement agreement and noted the agreement was a “settlement of all compensation and vocational and rehabilitation benefits due [Sparks] under the Alabama Worker‘s Compensation Act.” R. at 558.
On July 25, 2012, Sparks filed the instant federal complaint against Sunshine, alleging Sunshine had violated
Sunshine moved for summary judgment on all claims and argued Sparks had released his claims in the settlement of his workers’ compensation claim. Alternatively, Sunshine argued Sparks‘s claims failed on the merits, because he had not established a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge under Alabama law or interference or retaliation under the FMLA.
The district judge found Sparks had released Sunshine of liability for his
The judge determined Sparks had not released his FMLA claims in his workers’ compensation settlement agreement. Relying on Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., 666 F.3d 1269
II. DISCUSSION
A. Waiver of Alabama Code § 25-5-11.1 Retaliatory-Discharge Claim
On appeal, Sparks argues the district judge erred by finding that the release in his workers’ compensation settlement agreement extended to his retaliatory-discharge claim. He asserts Sanders and Cantrell are distinguishable from his case, because the releases at issue in those cases contained “or otherwise” language and were therefore much broader than the release in his settlement agreement. He further contends the Alabama Supreme Court would not follow Sanders and Cantrell today, based on its more recent decision in Dudley v. Mesa Industries, 770 So. 2d 1082, 1084 (Ala. 2000).
We review a district judge‘s granting summary judgment de novo and view all evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Chapter 7 Tr. v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 683 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is proper only “when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “A genuine [dispute] of material fact exists when a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.
In Sanders, the Supreme Court of Alabama examined whether an employee‘s
Likewise, in Aratex, an employer moved for summary judgment on its former employee‘s claim for retaliatory discharge and argued the employee had released that claim in her settlement agreement for workers’ compensation. Ex parte Aratex Servs., Inc., 622 So. 2d 367, 368 (Ala. 1993). The Alabama Supreme Court noted the release language in that case was virtually identical to the language of the release at issue in Sanders. Id. It concluded that, because there was no allegation or evi-
In Cantrell, the Alabama Supreme Court summarized its holdings in Sanders and Aratex and held a “settlement of any and all claims for compensation benefits due and rehabilitation or retraining benefits due is conclusive of any other claims, unless there is evidence of fraud, or the claim in issue is expressly excepted from the settlement agreement.” Cantrell, 678 So. 2d at 756 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The Alabama Supreme Court implicitly declined, however, to extend its holding in Cantrell to claims brought under
On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and concluded the trial court had not disposed of the employee‘s
Based on our review of the Alabama precedent, the district judge did not err by finding Sparks had released his
In addition, Sparks has not alleged fraud, and, as in Aratex and Cantrell, there was no express reservation of the retaliatory-discharge claim. Cantrell, 678 So. 2d at 756; Aratex, 622 So. 2d at 369. Although Sparks correctly asserts the Alabama Supreme Court did not follow Cantrell in Dudley, the court in Dudley was analyzing whether release language in a workers’ compensation settlement agreement released a claim brought under
B. FMLA Interference and Retaliation Claims
Sparks also argues on appeal he gave Sunshine sufficient notice of his need for FMLA leave when he informed his supervisors that surgery seemed imminent. He contends Sunshine violated his rights under the FMLA, because Sunshine terminated him to avoid accommodating his need for FMLA leave and in retaliation for requesting such leave.
The FMLA grants an eligible employee the right to take up to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave for any 12-month period for “a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.”
In order to receive FMLA protections, an employee must be both eligible, meaning having worked the requisite hours, and entitled to leave, meaning an employee has experienced a triggering event. Pereda, 666 F.3d at 1272. Nevertheless, because the FMLA requires notice in advance of future leave, employees are protected from interference prior to the occurrence of a triggering event. Id. at 1274. Thus, a pre-eligible employee has a cause of action if his employer terminates him in order to avoid having to accommodate that employee with rightful FMLA leave once the employee becomes eligible. Id. at 1275.
The FMLA requires employees to provide 30 days of advance notice of the leave, when the need to take leave is foreseeable.
Sparks did not provide Sunshine with notice sufficient to make the company aware that he needed FMLA-qualifying leave. Sparks merely informed his supervisors that “it was looking like it was very possible [he was] going to have to have surgery.” R. at 253. Sparks did not request leave or provide any information related to the timing or duration of any leave. At that point, it was possible Sparks would not need surgery and could continue working with no restrictions. Sparks did not know what type of surgery he possibly needed or if he even needed time off for surgery. Although Sparks relies on Pereda to support his argument, that case is distinguishable. Pereda concerned whether the FMLA protected an employee, who gave notice of her need for leave before she was eligible for FMLA leave, because she had not yet worked the requisite hours and had not experienced the triggering event, the birth of her child. Pereda, 666 F.3d at 1272. The key difference in Pereda is that the employee gave sufficient notice of her need for leave. She informed her employer she would be requesting FMLA leave after the birth of her child on or about November 30, 2009. Id. at 1271.
Because Sunshine was unaware Sparks needed or desired FMLA leave, Sparks has failed to establish Sunshine interfered with his rights under the statute by terminating him before he could take FMLA leave. For the same reason, Sparks has failed to establish Sunshine retaliated against him for engaging in a protected activity under the statute. Because the evidence demonstrates Sunshine terminated Sparks‘s employment based on his poor performance, not in retaliation, the district judge did not err by granting summary judgment to Sunshine on Sparks‘s FMLA interference and retaliation claims.
AFFIRMED.