Peter Potenza, Clifford Aversano v. City of New York
9 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1020, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 8067, 365 F.3d 165 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), a plaintiff must demonstrate that: 1) they exercised rights protected under the FMLA; 2) they were qualified for their position; 3) they suffered an adverse employment action; and 4) the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of retaliatory intent.
Facts:
- Peter Potenza was a long-time employee with the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT) at the Staten Island Ferry, where he received exemplary performance reports for many years.
- In 1998, Potenza was promoted to the managerial position of port engineer.
- Potenza took a one-month medical leave for knee surgery and subsequently requested an accommodation for physical therapy.
- In June 1999, Patrick Ryan was reinstated as port captain.
- Approximately two months after Potenza returned from his medical leave, Ryan and another director removed Potenza from his port engineer position.
- The DOT asserted that Potenza was removed due to poor job performance and organizational restructuring.
- Another employee, who had not taken medical leave, was also removed from the same position.
Procedural Posture:
- Peter Potenza filed suit against the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging FMLA violations among other claims.
- The DOT moved for summary judgment, arguing it had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its employment decision.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the DOT, finding that Potenza had not established a prima facie case for FMLA retaliation.
- Potenza (appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 an employee establish a prima facie case for retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by showing that an adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of retaliatory intent?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, an employee establishes a prima facie case for FMLA retaliation by demonstrating that they exercised FMLA rights, were qualified for the position, suffered an adverse employment action, and that the action occurred under circumstances inferring retaliatory intent. The court officially adopts the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for FMLA retaliation claims, distinguishing them from FMLA interference claims. This framework is appropriate for retaliation cases because the employer's intent is a material element. The court reasoned that while other circuits have adopted different standards, the McDonnell Douglas test, commonly used in Title VII retaliation cases, provides a clear and appropriate structure for analyzing claims where an employee alleges they were punished for exercising their FMLA rights. Applying this new standard, the court concluded that while Potenza met the first three prongs of the test, he failed to establish the fourth, as there was insufficient evidence to create an inference of retaliatory intent behind his removal.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the controlling legal standard for FMLA retaliation claims within the Second Circuit, providing crucial clarity for employers and employees. By aligning the FMLA retaliation analysis with the well-established McDonnell Douglas framework used for Title VII and other discrimination claims, the court promotes consistency in employment law jurisprudence. This ruling solidifies the requirement for plaintiffs to show evidence of retaliatory motive, not just a temporal connection between taking leave and an adverse action. The opinion also carefully distinguishes between 'retaliation' and 'interference' claims under the FMLA, leaving open the possibility that a different, less intent-focused standard might apply to claims that an employer simply interfered with an employee's right to take leave.
