Susan C. Darby v. Floyd Bratch
287 F.3d 673 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), public officials may be held individually liable for retaliating against an employee for exercising their statutory rights. Adverse employment actions sufficient to support a retaliation claim include denying a promotion, issuing disciplinary reports, or creating policies that preclude re-employment based on the use of FMLA-protected leave.
Facts:
- Susan Darby began working as a dispatcher for the Kansas City Police Department (KCPD) in 1993 and was diagnosed with Graves' disease in 1994, which caused frequent absences.
- In March 1998, Darby's supervisor, Captain Weishar, agreed to approve her transfer request if her sick leave use decreased; his replacement, Captain Allen, was aware of this agreement.
- After Darby missed ten days between January and May 1998 due to her illness, Captain Allen disapproved the transfer request.
- On September 18, 1998, Captain Allen told Darby her continued absences would not be tolerated. When Darby suggested this was discriminatory, Allen allegedly replied, "I can show you discrimination."
- On October 9, 1998, Darby applied for FMLA leave and was subsequently presented with an amended performance evaluation, ordered by Captain Allen, which newly included a negative reference to her use of sick time.
- While on approved FMLA leave, Darby received a formal Incident Report citing her for excessive use of unpaid leave.
- When Darby prepared to return to work in April 1999, Captain Allen informed her she would not be promoted because of her use of sick time.
- Darby resigned on April 28, 1999, after learning that the pending Incident Reports for her leave usage made her ineligible to be rehired by the KCPD.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Darby filed suit in the United States District Court against the Kansas City Police Department, the Board of Police Commissioners, and several individual supervisors, alleging violations of the FMLA, ADA, and other laws.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The District Court (trial court) granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Darby's claims.
- Susan Darby, as the appellant, appealed the District Court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 employer's consideration of an employee's use of FMLA-protected leave as a negative factor in employment decisions, such as denying a promotion or issuing disciplinary reports, constitute an adverse employment action sufficient to support a claim for retaliation under the Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Arnold, J.
Yes, an employer's consideration of an employee's use of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment decisions constitutes an adverse employment action sufficient to support a claim for retaliation under the Act. To establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, an employee must show protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection. Here, Darby suffered at least three adverse employment actions causally connected to her FMLA leave. First, she was explicitly told she would not be promoted due to her absences, which included FMLA leave, resulting in a loss of benefits. Second, she was disciplined via an Incident Report that cited her for using 'unpaid leave,' which is the nature of FMLA leave, and was recommended for termination for this reason. Third, the pending Incident Report renders her ineligible for rehire by the KCPD. Furthermore, public officials can be held individually liable as 'employers' under the FMLA. The statute's definition of employer as 'any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer' is nearly identical to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which permits individual liability. There is no basis to distinguish between public and private sector managers, so if an individual meets the FMLA's definition of an employer, they are subject to individual liability and are not entitled to qualified immunity for violating clearly established statutory rights.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the scope of retaliation under the FMLA within the Eighth Circuit by clarifying that adverse employment actions are not limited to termination, but also include denying promotions or issuing disciplinary reprimands based on protected leave. Critically, the case establishes that public officials can be held individually liable for FMLA violations, expanding the accountability of government managers beyond the agency itself. By aligning the FMLA's definition of 'employer' with the FLSA's, the court promotes a consistent interpretation of federal employment statutes and puts individual supervisors on notice that they can be personally sued for retaliatory conduct.
