Woods v. Start Treatment & Recovery Centers, Inc.
864 F.3d 158, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13038, 27 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 673 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
FMLA retaliation claims for exercising FMLA rights (such as taking medical leave) are actionable under 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) and require a 'motivating factor' causation standard. Adverse inferences drawn from a civil litigant's invocation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination are permissible only if relevant, reliable, and not unduly prejudicial, and must be subject to a Federal Rule of Evidence 403 analysis, particularly when based on mere accusations.
Facts:
- Cassandra Woods began working as a substance abuse counselor at START Treatment and Recovery Centers (START) in 2007.
- In 2011, START implemented a new, complex state-mandated note system called 'APG,' with which many counselors, including Woods, struggled to comply.
- START issued Woods multiple warning memos for performance issues between April 2011 and February 2012, noting her low note completion rate (e.g., 28% in February 2012 compared to 90-95% for others).
- In March 2012, START placed Woods on 90-day probation due to her ongoing failure to perform job duties.
- Woods suffered from severe anemia and other conditions, and on several occasions requested or took medical leave under the FMLA, including hospitalizations in August 2011 (six days) and April 2012 (seven days, while on probation).
- Woods claims she was told she could not take FMLA leave while on probation, causing her to decline hospitalization out of fear of job loss, though START denies this.
- Rodney Julian, Woods's supervisor, recommended her termination on May 10, 2012, and Dr. Robert Sage fired Woods on May 17, 2012, citing her failure to maintain patient notes and general performance issues.
- During her deposition, Woods invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to questions about whether she had been accused of criminal conduct, lying, fabrication, fraud, or convicted of immoral/unethical conduct.
Procedural Posture:
- Cassandra Woods sued START Treatment & Recovery Centers, Inc. and Addiction Research and Treatment Corporation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for, inter alia, interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
- START filed a motion in limine seeking an adverse inference instruction based on Woods's invocation of the Fifth Amendment during her deposition, which the district court granted, ruling that jurors would be permitted to presume affirmative answers.
- The district court also ruled that Woods was required to show 'but for' causation for her FMLA retaliation claim.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial in the district court, where the jury was instructed to apply 'but for' causation to Woods's FMLA retaliation claims and was permitted to draw adverse inferences from her Fifth Amendment invocation.
- The jury returned a complete defense verdict in favor of START.
- Woods appealed the final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as Plaintiff-Appellant.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) provide the statutory basis for FMLA retaliation claims where an employee is terminated for exercising FMLA rights, and if so, what causation standard ('but for' or 'motivating factor') applies to such claims? 2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting adverse inferences based on the plaintiff's invocation of the Fifth Amendment during a deposition, particularly when the underlying questions referred to mere accusations and lacked a proper Federal Rule of Evidence 403 balancing analysis?
Opinions:
Majority - Hall, Circuit Judge
1. Yes, FMLA retaliation claims for exercising FMLA rights are actionable under 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) and require a 'motivating factor' causation standard. The court first clarified that FMLA retaliation claims based on an employee exercising FMLA rights (e.g., taking leave) are properly rooted in 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1), which prohibits employers from 'interfere[ing] with, restrain[ing], or deny[ing] the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this subchapter.' Firing an employee for taking FMLA leave directly constitutes such interference or restraint, and a denial of reinstatement rights. The court contrasted this with § 2615(a)(2), which addresses discrimination for 'opposing any practice made unlawful,' finding it less suitable for claims involving the exercise of FMLA rights. The court accorded Chevron deference to the Department of Labor's regulation at 29 C.F.R. 825.220(c), which states that employers 'cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions.' This regulation reasonably fills a statutory gap in § 2615(a)(1) regarding the causation standard. Consequently, the 'negative factor' language establishes a 'motivating factor' causation standard, making the district court's instruction requiring 'but for' causation erroneous and prejudicial, necessitating a new trial. 2. No, it was unduly prejudicial to admit adverse inferences based on Woods's invocation of the Fifth Amendment during her deposition without a proper Federal Rule of Evidence 403 analysis. The court found that the district court abused its discretion in admitting and permitting adverse inferences to be drawn from Woods's Fifth Amendment invocation. First, many deposition questions concerned mere accusations of wrongdoing (e.g., being accused of lying or fraud), which possess minimal, if any, probative value regarding a witness's credibility, as both innocent and guilty individuals can be accused. This created acute prejudice. Second, an adverse inference based on an alleged conviction for 'immoral or unethical conduct' was problematic because Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2) permits conviction admission only for felonies or crimes involving dishonesty, and the record lacked clarity regarding the nature of any actual conviction. Third, the danger of unfair prejudice was exacerbated by defense counsel's repeated emphasis of Woods's Fifth Amendment invocation during cross-examination and summation, implying guilt without a corresponding Rule 403 balancing analysis. The court concluded that the unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the minimal probative value of these inferences, constituting prejudicial error that also warrants a new trial.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the causation standard for FMLA retaliation claims in the Second Circuit by unequivocally adopting a 'motivating factor' standard for claims arising under 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1). This lowers the burden of proof for employees alleging FMLA retaliation for exercising their rights, making it more akin to Title VII claims where a discriminatory motive doesn't have to be the sole cause. The ruling reinforces the protective intent of the FMLA and will likely make it easier for employees to prevail in such cases. Furthermore, the decision provides crucial guidance on the admissibility of adverse inferences from Fifth Amendment invocations in civil litigation, emphasizing the necessity of a rigorous Federal Rule of Evidence 403 analysis to prevent undue prejudice, especially when such inferences are based on mere accusations rather than concrete evidence, thereby protecting litigants from unfair attacks on their credibility.
