Lexplug logoLexplug

Bryson v. Regis Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
498 F.3d 561 (2007)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a retaliation claim, an employer's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination may be considered pretextual if there is a genuine dispute over when the employer learned the facts justifying the termination, particularly when the decision-maker may have been influenced by a supervisor with retaliatory animus.


Facts:

  • Karen Bryson, a long-time manager at a Supercuts store, injured her knee and required surgery scheduled for December 16, 2003.
  • Bryson's direct supervisor, Kim Sawyer, reacted negatively to the news, stating the timing was bad, Bryson was being selfish, and that she could be fired for taking time off.
  • Co-workers testified that Sawyer was upset about Bryson's leave, called Bryson a 'crippled ass,' and stated that she would 'make sure' Bryson did not keep her job upon return.
  • Bryson took approved FMLA leave, which was later extended to March 10, 2004.
  • On March 8, 2004, Bryson's doctor completed a required form stating she was 'unable to return to work at this time to required work responsibilities.'
  • On March 8 and 9, Bryson contacted Sawyer and another manager, Julie Wilson, respectively, to discuss her health status and propose returning to work with restrictions, such as performing seated work.
  • On March 10, 2004, Regis's FMLA administrator sent Bryson a termination letter, stating her physician had not released her to return to work.
  • Regis's records show that the company did not receive the doctor's form stating Bryson was unable to return to work until March 15, 2004, five days after it sent the termination letter.

Procedural Posture:

  • Karen Bryson filed a lawsuit against Regis Corporation in Kentucky state court.
  • Regis removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
  • Regis filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims, and Bryson filed a motion for partial summary judgment on her disability discrimination claim.
  • The district court granted Regis's motion for summary judgment, denied Bryson's motion, and dismissed the entire case.
  • Bryson (Appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext exist sufficient to survive summary judgment on an FMLA retaliation claim where an employee is terminated on the day her leave expires, there is evidence of supervisory animus against her for taking leave, and the employer received the doctor's note justifying termination five days after the decision to terminate was made?


Opinions:

Majority - R. Guy Cole, Jr.

Yes, a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext exists, making summary judgment for the employer improper. To establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, a plaintiff must show a causal connection between the protected activity (taking leave) and the adverse action (termination). Here, the temporal proximity of Bryson being fired on the very day her leave expired, combined with Sawyer's documented anger and threats, is sufficient to establish a causal link. While Regis offered a legitimate reason for termination—that Bryson was unable to return to work—a jury could find this was pretextual. Crucially, the termination letter was dated March 10, but Regis did not receive the doctor's form supporting that decision until March 15. This discrepancy creates a factual dispute about what information the decision-maker relied upon and when. Given the evidence of Sawyer's retaliatory animus, a jury could infer that Sawyer influenced the termination decision, rendering the company's stated reason a pretext for unlawful retaliation. The same logic applies to the disability-retaliation claim, which does not require the plaintiff to be legally 'disabled.'



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the principle that an employer's motive is central to retaliation claims and that the timing of when an employer learns crucial information is a critical factual question. The court's focus on the gap between the termination decision and the receipt of supporting evidence prevents employers from using 'after-acquired evidence' to retroactively justify a potentially retaliatory firing. Furthermore, the opinion highlights how a subordinate's discriminatory animus can taint an employment decision, even if the ultimate decision-maker is unaware of the bias (a 'cat's paw' theory), thereby making it more difficult for employers to win retaliation cases on summary judgment when there are disputes about internal communications.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bryson v. Regis Corp. (2007)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"