Samuel L. Stallings sued his employer, Hussmann Corporation (“Hussmann”) and Brian Groninger, for wrongful termination in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The district court granted summary judgment to Hussmann and Groninger. Stallings argues that the district court erred in applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel; erred in concluding that Hussmann and Groninger were entitled to summary judgment on Stall-ings’s FMLA claims; and erred in denying Stallings’s motion for partial summary judgment because Stallings established that Hussmann considered his FMLA leave as a reason to terminate his employment. We reverse the district court’s application of judicial estoppel and its entry of summary judgment in Hussmann’s favor.
I. Background
Stallings worked as a general laborer for Hussmann. The terms of Stallings’s employment, including the rate and method of his compensation, were determined by a collective bargaining agreement between the United States Steelworkers’ of America and Hussmann (“Bargaining Agreement”). The Bargaining Agreement provides that an employee shall be terminated if “the employee gives [a] false reason for a leave of absence.... ” Hussmann allows employees to take medical leave as required under the FMLA. In accordance with the FMLA, Hussmann allows “intermittent” FMLA leave for an employee to care for a family member when “medically necessary.” Hussman eventually termi *1044 nated Stallings for giving false reasons for use of leave time.
In December 2001, Stallings requested FMLA leave to care for his father. Stall-ings requested the leave through the Hussman Human Resources Office (“HRO”), which granted his request. Stallings subsequently submitted a request for an extension of the initial FMLA leave through June 2002, which the HRO also granted. Stallings took intermittent FMLA leave during both the initial period and the extended period. 1 In June 2002, Stallings applied to have his prior intermittent FMLA leave extended for another six-month period for “patient care.” Stall-ings submitted a Certificate of Health Care Provider in connection with this request. Hussmann’s FMLA policy, consistent with the FMLA, provides that “FMLA leave may be taken intermittently whenever medically necessary to care for a seriously ill family member.” The HRO granted his request for a third time.
At Hussmann, supervisors grant vacation time on a seniority basis and on the basis of company production needs. In February of each year, Hussmann policy and the Bargaining Agreement require employees to request vacation time for the entire year, if the employee is to exercise seniority rights for scheduling purposes. Senior workers receive priority when conflicts arise as to requested vacation. In February 2000 and February 2001, Stall-ings requested and was granted the first three weeks of August as vacation time.
In January or February 2002, Groninger became Stallings’s supervisor. In February 2002, Stallings, as in the two prior years, requested the first three weeks of August 2002 for his vacation. Because of Stallings’s seniority standing, however, Groninger could only schedule Stallings for one week of vacation in August. Groninger never approved Stallings to take vacation for the second and third weeks of August 2002. Groninger was never involved in deciding whether Stallings was entitled to FMLA leave.
Sometime prior to August 2002, Stall-ings met with Groninger to again request the second and third weeks of August as vacation time. Groninger denied his request because there were no available slots. Stallings then told Groninger that he intended to take off the second and third weeks of August 2002 anyway as FMLA leave. Stallings contends that he told Groninger that he would use the leave to provide care for his father who was unable to care for himself. Groninger contends that Stallings only told him he was using the leave to help his father move. Groninger reminded Stallings that he would have to call in each workday to an automated answering system to report his absence.
Stallings did not report to work for the first three weeks of August. The first week of work was scheduled vacation, and Stallings called the Hussmann automated answering system each day he was off work from August 12-26, 2002, and reported that he was using FMLA leave.
After Stallings returned to work, Louis Stralka, a Human Resources Generalist in the HRO, summoned Stallings to a meeting through Groninger. The parties dispute what transpired at this meeting. Stallings denies telling Stralka that he moved his father while off work from August 12-26, 2002. Stallings does admit that he “stated [his] reason why [he] was out on family medical leave” and that he *1045 told Stralka that he “was moving, providing for his [father’s] needs, painting, cutting the grass, et. cetera.” During the meeting, Stallings admitted that he did not help his father move because the move was cancelled in early August, only a few days before his vacation time began. When Stralka asked Stallings why he did not return to work when he learned that he was not going to help his father move, Stallings responded, “Because I was on vacation.”
Stallings told Stralka that he spent the two weeks he was on FMLA leave performing maintenance on his father’s home because the City of St. Louis had issued a citation to his father to get the house up to Code. The City, however, dismissed the citation against Stallings’s father in June 2002. In addition, the citation did not relate to painting or yard maintenance but to open storage containers on the property. Stallings admitted that he had siblings and his father’s wife in the area who could also help his father, that he could have performed these tasks on the weekends and at night, and that he did not need to take time off work to perform the tasks around his father’s house.
Stralka reported to Richard Kurt, the Director of the HRO, that he believed Stallings was lying about the reason he was absent for two weeks. Kurt made the decision to terminate Stallings for “calling in FMLA for non-FMLA reasons, fraudulent and [sic] misuse of the leave of absence policy, violation of company policies in connection therewith and causing falsification of the company’s records in this regard.” Stallings admitted that he had no evidence that Groninger decided to terminate him or that anyone other than Kurt made the decision to terminate him on October 1, 2002.
Following his termination, Stallings filed a grievance with the union, but the union eventually withdrew the grievance. Stall-ings then filed a complaint on December 18, 2002, with the United States Department of Labor, alleging that his termination violated the FMLA. The Department of Labor, however, found in favor of Hussmann, concluding that Stallings was properly terminated for fraudulently taking leave.
At the time of Stallings’s termination on October 1, 2002, he was a debtor in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. At no time during the pendency of Stallings’s bankruptcy case did he disclose his claims against Groninger or Hussmann to the bankruptcy court. On March 11, 2003, the bankruptcy court granted the bankruptcy trustee’s motion to dismiss the case. The bankruptcy case was closed on June 25, 2003.
On September 12, 2003, Stallings filed suit against Hussmann and Groninger, alleging an interference claim and a retaliation claim under the FMLA. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Hussmann’s and Groninger’s motion for summary judgment, holding that (1) Stallings’s claims were barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel because Stallings failed to disclose his cause of action against Hussmann and Groninger in his bankruptcy proceedings; (2) even if his claims were not barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel, Stall-ings failed to rebut Hussmann’s and Gron-inger’s non-diseriminatory reason for terminating him; and (3) Stallings could not show that his FMLA rights were interfered with, restrained, or denied in any way by Hussmann and Groninger.
II. Discussion
Stallings raises three arguments on appeal: (1) that the district court erred in dismissing all of his claims based upon the *1046 doctrine of judicial estoppel; (2) that the district court erred in concluding that had it not dismissed all of Stallings’s claims based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel, it would have granted Hussmann’s and Groninger’s motion for summary judgment because Stallings failed to prove pretext for the FMLA claims; and (3) that the district court erred in denying Stallings’s motion for partial summary judgment because Stallings established that his use of FMLA leave to care for his father was considered as a reason to terminate his employment.
A. Judicial Estoppel
Stallings first argues that the district court erred in dismissing all of his claims based upon the doctrine of judicial estop-pel because application of the three factors delineated in
New Hampshire v. Maine,
1. Applicable Standard of Review
We have not previously articulated the proper standard of review when reviewing a district court’s application of the judicial estoppel doctrine.
Leonard v. Southwestern Bell Corp. Disability Income Plan,
The. First Circuit offers four bases for reviewing a district court’s application of the judicial estoppel doctrine for an abuse of discretion.
Alternative,
Finding the First Circuit’s reasoning persuasive, we hold that the abuse of discretion standard applies to this court’s review of a district court's application of the judicial estoppel doctrine. “The fact that this case arises in the summary judgment context does not affect our decision to review the trial court’s determination for abuse of discretion” because the abuse of discretion standard “typically applies to threshold evidentiary determinations made in connection with summary judgment motions.” Id. .Therefore, we will not overturn a district court’s discretionary application of the judicial estoppel doc *1047 trine “unless it plainly appears that the court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weigh-, ing of the proper factors.” Id. at 32.
2. The Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel
The doctrine of judicial estoppel “protects the integrity of the judicial process.”
Total Petroleum, Inc. v. Davis,
“The circumstances under which judicial estoppel may appropriately be invoked are probably not reducible to any general formulation of principle.”
Id.
at 750,
First, a party’s later position must be clearly inconsistent with its earlier position. Second, courts regularly inquire whether the party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party’s earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create the perception that either the first or the second court was misled. Absent success in a prior proceeding, a party’s later inconsistent position introduces no risk of inconsistent court determinations, and thus poses little threat to judicial integrity. A third consideration is whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped.
Id.
at 750-51,
In the bankruptcy context, a party may be judicially estopped from asserting a cause of action not raised in a reorganization plan or otherwise mentioned in the debtor’s schedules or disclosure statements.
Coastal,
The second
New Hampshire
factor requires that the bankruptcy court have adopted the debtor’s position.
Superior,
Under the final
New Hampshire
factor, the debtor’s non-disclosure of the claim must not be inadvertent and must result in the debtor gaining an unfair advantage.
Superior,
Second, when a debtor does not disclose potential claims against its creditors in the bankruptcy petition, the interests of both the creditors and the bankruptcy court are impaired.
Coastal,
Finally, a debtor who files his bankruptcy petition, subsequently receives a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and then fails to amend his bankruptcy petition to add his lawsuit against his employer as a potential asset is estopped from bringing the lawsuit because the debtor “knew about the undisclosed claims and had a motive to conceal them from the bankruptcy court.”
DeLeon v. Comcar Indus., Inc.,
*1049
Notably, judicial estoppel does not apply when a debtor’s “prior position was taken because of a good-faith mistake rather than as part of a scheme to mislead the court.”
Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co.,
Here, the district court failed to apply the three factors outlined in New Hampshire; therefore, we will apply each factor to determine if the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Stallings’s claims based on judicial estoppel.
First, as in Gebert, Stallings’s failure to amend his bankruptcy schedules to include his claims against Hussmann and Groninger represented to the bankruptcy court that no such claims existed. Therefore, his subsequent filing of the FMLA claims against Hussmann and Groninger are “clearly inconsistent” with his position in bankruptcy court that no such claims existed.
Under the second factor, however, no judicial acceptance of Stallings’s inconsistent position occurred. Unlike Superior and Hamilton, the bankruptcy court never discharged Stallings’s debts based on the information that Stallings provided in his schedules. Instead, the bankruptcy court granted the bankruptcy trustee’s motion to dismiss the case.
Finally, Stallings would not derive an unfair advantage over Hussmann and Groninger if allowed to bring the FMLA claims against them. Stallings was already a Chapter 13 debtor when Huss-mann terminated him from his job; therefore, he could not have known at the time he filed his bankruptcy petition to disclose such claims. In addition, unlike the debtors in
Pay less
and
Barger
who alleged that the defendants’ wrongdoings led to their bankruptcy filings, Stallings does not allege that Hussmann’s or Groninger’s wrongdoing caused him to file for bankruptcy. Also, while the debtors in
Coastal
and
Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey Bank,
Upon weighing the New Hampshire factors, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in applying the judicial estoppel doctrine to the present case.
*1050 B. FMLA Claims
Stallings next argues that the district court erred in concluding that, alternatively, it could grant Hussmann’s and Groninger’s motion for summary judgment because Stallings failed to prove pretext. Stallings claims that he established pretext regarding one of Hussmann’s and Groninger’s reasons for his discharge. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
Putman v. Unity Health Sys.,
The FMLA provides job security to employees who must miss work because of their own illnesses, to care for family members, or to care for new babies. 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(l)(A)-(D). The FMLA provides eligible employees up to 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period. Id. § 2612(a)(1). An employee must provide notice to an employer that he plans to take FMLA leave. Id. § 2612(e)(2).
Two types of claims exist under the FMLA: (1) “interference” or “(a)(1)” claims in which the employee alleges that an employer denied or interfered with his substantive rights under the FMLA and (2) “retaliation” or “(a)(2)” claims in which the employee alleges that the employer discriminated against him for exercising his FMLA rights. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1)-(2). Stallings alleges both an interference claim and a retaliation claim against Huss-mann and Groninger and asserts that the district court improperly analyzed his FMLA claims as solely a claim for FMLA retaliation when he brought claims for both interference and retaliation.
1. Interference Claim
An employer is prohibited from interfering with, restraining, or denying an employee’s exercise of or attempted exercised of any right contained in the FMLA. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1). Interference includes “not only refusing to authorize FMLA leave, but discouraging an employee from using such leave. It would also include manipulation by a covered employer to avoid responsibilities under FMLA.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(b). An employer’s action that deters an employee from participating in protected activities constitutes an “interference” or “restraint” of the employee’s exercise of his rights.
Bachelder v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc.,
In an interference claim, an “employee must show only that he or she was entitled to the benefit denied.”
Russell v. N. Broward Hosp.,
Confusion often arises as to whether an employee’s FMLA claim “is really about interference with his substantive rights, not discrimination or retaliation.”
Kauffman v. Fed. Express Corp.,
In the present case, we conclude that the district court did not improperly analyze Stalling’s FMLA claim as one of retaliation instead of interference. First, Hussmann granted every request Stallings made to take FMLA leave; therefore, Stallings has failed to establish that Hussmann and Groninger denied him a benefit to which he was entitled because he received all of the FMLA leave he requested. With regard to Groninger, Stallings failed to present evidence that Groninger was involved in the decision to terminate him. Second, neither Hussmann nor Groninger ever impeded Stallings’s use of FMLA leave. Third, only after Stallings returned from FMLA leave did Hussmann question whether Stallings fraudulently used his FMLA leave and fire Stallings. Therefore, Stalling’s claim is fundamentally a claim for retaliation and should be analyzed as such.
2. Retaliation Claim
The FMLA prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee for asserting his rights under the Act.
Darby v. Bratch,
While Stallings argues that he has presented direct evidence of Hussmann’s discriminatory intent because he was terminated for “calling in FMLA for non-FMLA reasons,” we find no such evidence. First, the Bargaining Agreement specifically states that an employee is subject to termination for giving a false reason for taking a leave of absence. Second, Stallings failed to present any evidence that Huss-mann or Groninger admitted to discriminating against him because he used his FMLA for a legitimate purpose. Therefore, his retaliation claim must be analyzed under the
McDonnell Douglas
burden-shifting framework. Because neither party disputes that Stallings established a pri-ma facie case of discrimination under
McDonnell Douglas,
the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its challenged actions.
McDonnell Douglas,
Once the employer comes forward with evidence of a reason other than retaliation for the employee’s discharge, the employee is “left with ‘the opportunity to demonstrate that the proffered reason is not the true reason for the employment decision.’ ”
Wallace v. DTG Operations, Inc.,
Second, the plaintiff may prove pretext “ ‘directly by persuading the court that a [prohibited] reason more likely motivated the employer.’ ”
Id.
(quoting
Burdine,
An employee may prove pretext by demonstrating that the employer’s proffered reason has no basis in fact, that the employee received a favorable review shortly before he was terminated, that similarly situated employees who did not engage in the protected activity were treated more leniently, that the employer changed its explanation for why it fired the employee, or that the employer deviated from its policies.
Smith,
Here, Stallings asserts that he established pretext because (1) a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Stral-ka “reasonably believed” that Stallings was lying to him regarding his activities while on leave because Stallings denied stating to Stralka that he moved his father while on FMLA leave and (2) Stralka began looking into Stallings’s use of leave only three days after Stallings returned from leave and terminated him for “calling in FMLA for non-FMLA reasons.”
As we review Stallings’s retaliation claim, we are mindful that we do not “sit as super-personnel departments reviewing the wisdom or fairness of the business judgments made by employers, except to the extent those judgments involve intentional discrimination.”
Hutson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
Construing the facts in light most favorable to Stallings, we find that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Stallings told his employer that he intended to take FMLA leave both to move his terminally ill father and assist with his father’s personal and medical *1053 needs. 4 Stallings testified that he informed Groninger that he intended to take FMLA leave to move his father and to provide for this father’s care. He also testified that while the plans to move Ms father changed shortly after Ms FMLA leave commenced, he still provided for Ms father’s needs by cutting the grass, painting, retrieving his father’s medicine, dressing his father, cooMng for Ms father, driving his father, and paying his father’s bills. Stallings admits telling Stralka that he did not move his father; however, he also maintains that he also told Stralka that he provided for his father’s needs during his FMLA leave.
Therefore, if Stallings told Ms employer of Ms twofold mission prior to taking Ms FMLA leave and subsequently confirmed to his employer that he did provide for his father’s needs while on FMLA leave, then Stallings’s failure to move Ms father would not justify the defendants in reasonably believmg that Stallings was lying about why he took FMLA leave.
Because the court’s “function is not [itself] to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial,”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 249,
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, we hold that while the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Hussmann and Gron-inger on Stalling’s FMLA interference claim, it did abuse its discretion in applying judicial estoppel and erred in granting summary judgment to Hussmann and Groninger on Stalling’s retaliation claim. Therefore, we reverse the district court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Notes
. Stallings does not allege that Hussmann took any adverse action against him as a result of his use of intermittent FMLA leave during these periods. In addition, on other occasions when Stallings was disciplined for absences, he was informed of his rights to take leave under the FMLA.
. Gebert was decided three months after the Court’s decision in New Hampshire. In Ge-bert, however, this court did not specifically address the three recommended factors outlined in New Hampshire nor cite New Hampshire.
. When analyzing an interference claim under the FMLA, this court has rejected the application of burden-shifting scheme in
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
. Because we find a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Stallings told his employer that he intended to take FMLA leave both to move his terminally ill father and assist with his father's personal and medical needs, we hold that the district court did not err in denying Stallings's motion for partial summary judgment.