Rоbert SLENTZ, Appellant, v. CITY OF REPUBLIC, MISSOURI; Greg D. Chadwell, Individually and in his official capacity as Interim City Administrator, Appellee.
No. 05-1663
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
May 12, 2006
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 14, 2006
448 F.3d 1008
But we do not have to decide the legal relevance, if any, that the subjective intent of the officer in the present case might have because the district court found on an ample record that Deputy Ruth entered the apartment to investigate a possible emergency situation. In fact, Mr. Quezada does not even assert that Deputy Ruth did not believe that an еmergency existed or that he used this belief as a pretext to search for criminal wrongdoing. Deputy Ruth‘s entry into the apartment therefore violated the fourth amendment only if no reasonable officer could have believed that an emergency was at hand.
We agree with the district court that Deputy Ruth‘s belief was reasonable. Had the apartment been dark and quiet, it might have been reasonable to assume that Ms. Giannone had simply not closed the door securely on her way out. But when the door opened, Deputy Ruth saw that the lights were on and heard a television playing, making it more likely that someone was at home. When Deputy Ruth yelled into the apartment several times but received no answer, a reasonable officer in the deputy‘s position could conclude that someone was inside but was unable to respond for some reason. Because Deputy Ruth had a lawful basis for entering Ms. Giannone‘s apartment, the shotgun that he saw protruding from beneath Mr. Quezada is admissible under the plain-view doctrine. See Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326, 107 S.Ct. 1149, 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987); see also Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (plurality opinion).
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court‘s denial of Mr. Quezada‘s motion to suppress.
R. Lynn Myers, argued, Springfield, Missouri (Richard C. Crites, on the brief), for appellant.
M. Douglas Harpool, argued, Springfield, Missouri (Kristen B. Roubal, on the brief), for appellee.
Before SMITH, HEANEY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Robert Slentz sued the City of Republic, Missouri, and Interim City Administrator Greg D. Chadwell alleging that the defendants violated his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA“). The district court1 granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
I. Background
Robert Slentz, a full-time police officer for the City of Republic, Missouri, injured his shoulder while off duty. Slentz took sick leave due to the injury and eventually
By a second letter, the City informed Slеntz of the approaching expiration date for his FMLA leave and reminded him that he would need to provide a fitness-for-duty certificate at least one day prior to returning to work. The letter stated further that if such a certificate were not provided, Slentz would be expected to resign at the expiration of his FMLA leave. Unfortunately, Slentz‘s physician declined to certify Slentz as fit for duty until he had recuperated—several weeks after the expiration of his leave. Accordingly, Slentz submitted his letter of resignation.
Slentz sued, alleging that the defendants wrongfully interfered with his rights under the FMLA. The district court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion. The court held that it was pеrmissible to run sick leave and FMLA leave concurrently, that Slentz was given proper notice, and that the defendants did not otherwise wrongfully interfere with Slentz‘s exercise of FMLA leave. Finding no error, we affirm.
II. Discussion
A. Concurrent Leave
Slentz contends that the City violated his FMLA rights by extending him only twelve weeks of leave despite his having more than twelve weeks of accruеd sick leave. We disagree. The FMLA provides that an “eligible employee“—e.g., one with a “serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee“—“shall be entitled to a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period.”
In this case, the City elected to run Slentz‘s FMLA leave concurrently with his accrued sick leave2 as authorized under the FMLA.
B. Estoppel
Slentz also argues that the City‘s representations to him in its initial notice letter estops the City from claiming that he was limited to twelve total weeks of leave. The letter, in relevant part, read:
Family Medical Leave will begin on January 30, 2003, and is expected to continue until you are released from yоur doctor‘s care.
Except as explained below, you have a right under the FMLA for up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave in a twelve month period....
Pointing to the first sentence above, Slentz asserts that (1) the City knew when it sent the letter that Slentz was expected to be off work until approximately May 17, 2003; and (2) that he had acсrued unused sick and vacation leave that would have covered him beyond May 17, 2003.3 Slentz contends that his reliance on this sentence presents a genuine issue of material fact, making the grant of summary judgment improper. However, the City correctly points out in its brief, as did the district court in its decision, that the very next sentence of thаt letter undermines Slentz‘s argument because it unambiguously states that Slentz was entitled to a maximum of twelve weeks of FMLA leave.
For legal support, Slentz cites Duty v. Norton-Alcoa Proppants, 293 F.3d 481, 493 (8th Cir. 2002). However Duty is distinguishable because it dealt with an employer‘s letter that informed the employee that his entire 34-week sick leave qualified under the FMLA. In Duty, this court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying equitable estoppel to prevent an employer from claiming that the employee‘s leave was confined to the twelve weeks actually afforded by the FMLA. Id. at 494. The court reasoned that the letter explicitly guaranteed the employee 34 weeks of leave and that the facts indicated that the employee had relied on this representation. Id. By contrast, the initial letter to Slentz did not explicitly guarantee him a specific amount of leave or leave until a specific date but instead assured him twelve weeks of FMLA leave. In addition, Slentz could not have relied on the City‘s letter in electing surgery because his shoulder surgery was cоmplete when he received the letter. Therefore, we hold that the City was not estopped from limiting Slentz to twelve weeks of leave by its notice letter.
C. Record Keeping
Slentz next posits that summary judgment was improper because the City has not given Slentz records required by
We hold that the City was permitted to run Slentz‘s sick leave concurrent with his FMLA leave, that the City was not estopped by its February letter, and that the City was not required to submit any records to Slentz pursuant to
HEANEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority disregards both the plain language and thе plain purpose of the FMLA in holding that the City of Republic did not violate Robert Slentz‘s rights under the statute.
“Our starting point in interpreting a statute is always the language of the statute itself.” United States v. S.A., 129 F.3d 995, 998 (8th Cir. 1997); see also Hennepin County Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 81 F.3d 743, 748 (8th Cir. 1996).
The canons of statutory construction also state that “‘it is well settled that, in interpreting a statute, the court will not look merely to a particular clause in which general words may be used, but will take in connection with it the whole statute and the objects and policy of the law ....‘” Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 586, 103 S.Ct. 2017, 76 L.Ed.2d 157 (1983) (quoting Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 194, 15 L.Ed. 595 (1857) (emphasis added in Bob Jones)). The FMLA therefore must be analyzed and construed against the background of the Congressional purposes of the Act.
The final Senate report on section 2614(a)(2) “makes explicit that an employer may not deprive an employee who takes leave of benefits accrued before the dаte on which the leave commenced.” S.Rep. No. 103-3, at 32 (1993), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1993, 3, 32. The House of Representatives echoed the Senate‘s intent concerning section 2614(a)(2). H.R.Rep. No. 103-8(I), at 42 (1993). In a related report, the House states, “[f]amily and medical leave are in addition to any annual leave, sick leave, or other leave ... otherwise available to the employee.” H.R.Rep. No. 103-8(II), at 9 (1993).
The Act‘s legislative history clearly states Congress‘s intent behind the FMLA. The House of Representatives explained that “[a]n employer is required to continue any pre-existing health benefit coverage during the leave period, and at the conclusion of leave, to reinstate the employee to the same or an equivalent position.” H.R.Rep. No. 103-8(I), at 16 (1993). The Senate‘s intent was just as plain: “[t]he taking of leave may not deprive the employee of any benefit accrued before the leave, nor does it entitle the employee to any right or benefit other than that to which the employee would have been entitled had the employee not taken the leave.” S.Rep. No. 103-3, at 3 (1993).
The majority correctly notes the congressional intent was to balance the concerns of both employers and employees. Employees are entitled to a minimum of 12
However, the majority ignores the plain languаge of the statute, which indicates that the FMLA cannot be used to deny Slentz‘s benefits that he earned prior to his FMLA leave. The majority additionally suggests that Slentz was attempting to improperly tack on FMLA leave to sick leave he had earned as part of the collective bargaining agreement that Republic negotiаted with Slentz‘s union. I do not agree. Slentz has conceded that his 12 weeks of FMLA leave ran concurrently with the first 480 hours, or 12 weeks, of his earned sick leave.
Slentz‘s action is distinguishable from Ragsdale and Strickland v. Water Works & Sewer Board, 239 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2001). In Ragsdale, the plaintiff utilized all of her available leave time, after which she requested further leave under the FMLA. 218 F.3d at 935. This was a classic case of tacking, and, it is agreed, one that is prohibited under the FMLA. Id. at 940. The majority errs in applying Ragsdale to Slentz‘s claim because Slentz did not ask his employer to tack on his earned sick leave to his FMLA leave. Instead, he asked Republic to allow his sick leave and FMLA leave to run concurrently, holding Republic accountable under the FMLA Act for the remaining sick leave that he was entitled to under his collective bargaining agreement. As such, Slentz‘s request that Republic honor its commitment to provide him the rest of his earned sick leave conforms to the plain language of sections 2614(a)(2) and 2652(a), which required Republic to provide the benefits that had accrued prior to Slentz‘s FMLA leave, and to ensure benefits that went above and beyond those provided by the FMLA.
In Strickland, the dispute centered on whether the plaintiff was entitled to take FMLA leave in addition to the paid leave available under his employer‘s sick leave policy. 239 F.3d at 1201-02. The court held that the FMLA permits employers to provide the additional weeks necessary to reach the 12 work weeks of leave that is required in
The majority opinion misapplies Strickland. Slentz has not requested FMLA leave to reach the 12-week minimum of leave; rather, Slentz asks that his FMLA leave run concurrently with his sick leave, requiring Republic to honor its commitment to the 200-plus hours of sick leave that Slentz is entitled to. By applying Strickland outside of its context, the majority shields the employer from complying with its contractual commitments, and bypasses the express intent of the FMLA to safeguard agreements that provide benefits that are greater than those provided for by the FMLA.
The majority‘s decision disregards the congressional purpose behind the FMLA. While it rightly attempts to balance employee and employer concerns, it wrongly excludes from its interpretation of the FMLA the congressional intent to protect Slentz‘s rights to the 282 hours of sick leave he had remaining after his FMLA leave expired. Consequently, Republic is allowed to use the FMLA as a knife to whittle away the benefit plan it provided its employee. I would reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand to the district court with instructions to enter an order reinstating Slentz to his former position with equivalent pay, benefits, status, and the other terms and conditions of his employment.
LAVENSKI R. SMITH
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE