ALEXANDER v. CAROLINA FIRE CONTROL INC., No. 1:2014cv00074 - Document 78 (M.D.N.C. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE STEPHANIE D. THACKER on 7/24/2015. Plaintiff failed to provide evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in her favor. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED. A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.(Daniel, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ALEXANDER v. CAROLINA FIRE CONTROL INC. Doc. 78 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA MANDI MARIE ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, 1:14-CV-0074 v. CAROLINA FIRE CONTROL INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THACKER, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation This ("Plaintiff") case brought is interference with the the Family and Medical Leave Act Plaintiff's evidence, law pursuant Procedure. Mandi Marie to rights ("FMLA") . Defendant moved for Rule Because 50 of Plaintiff sufficient to support her claim, the has afforded her by At the conclusion of judgment as Federal not Alexander ("Defendant") . 1 against Carolina Fire Control Inc. Plaintiff alleges of by Rules presented a matter of Civil evidence Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50 is GRANTED. I. Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate party has been fully heard on an issue during a " [ i] f a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally 1 Defendant is owned by brothers Jeff and John Sossonman. 1 Dockets.Justia.com sufficient issue." evidentiary basis to find Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 (a) (1). for the party on that As this Court has explained: This is also a "directed verdict" motion. "[W] hen considering a motion for a directed verdict, [the court] must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." In this analysis, "(t]he court . must [also] determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could draw only one conclusion from the evidence." Madison River Mgmt. Co. cv-00379, 1932574, 2006 WL v. (alterations in original) Bus. Mgmt. at *2 Software Corp., (M.D.N.C. July (quoting Townley v. No. 11, 1:032006) Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 887 F.2d 498, 499 (4th Cir. 1989)). A motion "when any verdict for a directed in favor verdict should (4th Cir. 1985) Dept. granted of the nonmoving party necessarily will be premised upon speculation and conjecture." Commonwealth of Va. be of Gen. Servs., 753 F.2d 1281, (internal quotation marks omitted). question is not whether there is no evidence, Gairola v. 1285 So "[t]he but whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a jury can properly proceed to reach a enough verdict, to although a mere scintilla of evidence is defeat a motion for a directed verdict." not Id. (citations omitted). II. Plaintiff has alleged that her rights provided by the FMLA. 2 Defendant interfered with Specifically, Plaintiff claims her exercising from her discouraged Defendant to right leave under the FMLA. Under the an FMLA, employee entitled is twelve to weeks of unpaid leave "[i]n order to care for the spouse, or a if such spouse, son, son, daughter, § of the employee, or parent, daughter, 29 or parent has a serious health condition." 2612 (a) (1) (C). u.s.c. The FMLA also ensures the employee is restored to his or her previous position -- or an equivalent position -after taking leave. It "interfere attempt is prove employer (3) the To prevail (1) she was § under restrain, exercise" 2615 (a) (1). must unlawful with, to See 29 U.S.C. the FMLA for deny or the exercise right on an the to to (4th Cir. Pub. Schs., June 15, 2015). No. employer an provision 14-1608, u.s.c. FMLA benefit; of that or to the § an employee (2) her benefit"; and Adams v. Anne 2015 WL 3651735, Plaintiff's claim fails 2 of 29 claim, "that interference caused harm" or prejudice. Arundel Cnty. an leave. interference entitled "interfered with 2614 (a) (1) . 2 at *3 for want of To be eligible for FMLA leave, Plaintiff was required to notify Defendant of her need for the leave as soon as possible under the circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.303(a). The parties have stipulated that Plaintiff provided adequate notice to Defendant. Then, upon receiving Plaintiff's notice, Defendant was required to provide eligibility notice to Plaintiff. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(b). The parties have stipulated that Defendant provided appropriate notice to Plaintiff. 3 evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude her employer interfered with the provision of FMLA benefits -- the second element of her claim. 3 Interference includes "not only refusing to authorize FMLA leave, but discouraging an employee from using such leave." 29 C.F.R. that she § 825.220(b). "intended paperwork and to [she] and apply for complaint, her have her physician intermittent Plaintiff complete FMLA. alleged the FMLA However was called into a meeting with Defendant's owners she Compl. to to In was discouraged 10, ECF No. prevent (something) difficulties." accord 2011). 1. New completing the FMLA paperwork." To "discourage" is to "prevent or seek by showing Oxford Am. Merriam-Webster's Accounting from Dictionary Collegiate for disapproval without or 496 (3d Dictionary 357 citing this creating ed. 2010); (11th ed. definition, other courts have concluded that interference or discouragement occurs when "an employer provides taking FMLA leave." 487 F. example, Supp. 2d 1225, forcing an Coleman v. 1245 (D. employee a powerful disincentive for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kan., Kan. to 3 2007). choose This includes, between resigning for and All three elements must be proven in order for Plaintiff to meet her burden. Because she has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the second element, this Court's discussion is confined to this element; it is unnecessary to discuss whether Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of the third element. 4 working without leave, telling an employee she would lose all accrued sick leave for taking FMLA leave, and denying FMLA leave See id. 124 5 n. 61 outright. (collecting cases) ; see also, e.g., Mardis v. Cent. Nat'l Bank & Trust of Enid, (lOth Cir. 1999) (unpublished table 173 F.3d 864, at *2 ("Informing decision) an employee that she would be irrevocably deprived of all accrued sick leave and annual leave as a condition of taking leave under the FMLA would operate as a powerful disincentive to assertion of that employee's rights under the FMLA."). of the conduct the FMLA seeks to prevent. Rec. E32 3-01 (daily ed. Feb. 16, 19 93) M. Barrett) workers This is the nature See, e.g. , 13 9 Cong. (statement of Rep. Thomas ("This family oriented legislation ensures American that they have a job to come back to experience serious illness in their family. if they It is unfair to ask a parent or a spouse to chose between family obligations and their jobs."). On the other hand, an employer does not interfere with an employee's FMLA rights when it offers benefits options more beneficial than those provided by the Croy v. 3776802, Blue at Ridge *8 (W.D. Bread, Va. Inc., July No. 15, (finding leave FMLA. 3:12-cv-00034, 2013) or 2013 See WL employers "cannot be punished for offering benefits greater than what is required under the FMLA" (emphasis omitted) ) . This is the kind of behavior that is favored and is not prohibited by the FMLA. 5 See Campbell (E.D. Va. v. Verizon Va., ("In 2011) provided that discourage Inc., adopting the 812 F. FMLA, from Congress leave adopting generous than [those U.S.C. 2653) 748, 756 explicitly policies more (quoting 29 (alterations in original)). § required] 2d shall be construed to 'nothing in this Act employers Supp. under this Act.'" III. At this stage of her case, Plaintiff must provide more than merely her own bare claim that Defendant discouraged her She must prove it. from exercising her rights under the FMLA. Plaintiff must discouragement. In fact, evidence provide of interference, of Plaintiff has failed to provide this evidence. she has proved that her claim must fail as a matter of law. Plaintiff exercising her that Jeff claims FMLA rights. Sossaman completing the Defendant said [ FMLA] discouraged Specifically, she "did not paperwork her from Plaintiff testified need to and that worry we about could work something out, a different plan that could involve everybody and accommodate everybody." vol. 1, allowed 18:12-15. her to Tr. of Trial Test. Plaintiff further work remotely, which of Mandi Alexander testified that afforded her this plan the time necessary to take care of her ailing son and ensured she would receive her full salary and benefits, which would not have been 6 available not to her under the required to work testified that, Defendant, 40 Additionally, FMLA. forty hours Plaintiff was In per week. fact, she pursuant to the plan agreed to by Plaintiff and Plaintiff was not required to work any set number of hours: Q. Was there any discussion about a minimum number of hours that you should be working? A. No. Jeff asked me to put in the hours that I could, work when I could, and no set amount was ever discussed. He was pretty open to just whenever I could get to it throughout my time around my son. Id. at 21:1-6. Based on her testimony, the sole basis of Plaintiff's interference claim is simply that she was told by Defendant that she did not need to fill out the FMLA paperwork and that they would come up with a plan where Plaintiff could take leave, care for her son, Plaintiff and receive her full revealed that Defendant salary. did Further inquiry of not attach consequences to or counsel against taking FMLA leave: Q. [Defendant] never actually told you that you shouldn't take FMLA, did they? A. Jeff Sossoman told me I did not need to fill out the FMLA paperwork. Q. That's the extent to what he said about that, according to you, correct? A. That is the extent of what he said. 7 negative Q. A. No, he did not. Q. He didn't say if you filled out the FMLA paperwork his brother [John Sossaman] would be upset with you or there would be any ramifications? A. Tr. He never told you if you filled out the FMLA paperwork it would in any way impact your job? No, he did not. of Trial Test. subsequent of Mandi Alexander vol. testimony, Plaintiff reiterated 1, 62: 2 4-63: 11. that Defendant In did not present her with negative consequences: Q. A. Correct, they did not. Q. So they never said they didn't want you to take FMLA, right? That's fair? A. Tr. They never said that your job would be in jeopardy in any way, shape or form if you filled out the paperwork or took FMLA, correct? Yes. of Trial short, Test. of Mandi Alexander vol. 2, 16: 6-17: 1. In Plaintiff presented no evidence that Defendant pressured or discouraged her in any way with regard to her decision to take or not to take FMLA leave. The crux of an interference claim is that the employee was discouraged from negative consequences. taking See, leave e.g., 8 by being Coleman, 487 presented F. Supp. with 2d at 1245 n.61 (collecting cases); cf. 29 C.F.R. is what the FMLA seeks to prohibit. 825.220(b). § In contrast, This Plaintiff was given an option -- which she accepted -- that went beyond the protections of the FMLA. was not presented Further, with negative Plaintiff testified that she consequences that would flow from her invocation of the protections afforded by the FMLA. Accordingly, viewing the favorable to the nonmoving party finds that support Plaintiff has of properly her not to reach (i.e., presented interference proceed evidence claim a in the light Plaintiff), sufficient upon which verdict. On most this Court evidence the this jury in could evidence, no reasonable juror could find in favor of Plaintiff, and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. IV. In sum, sufficient for a THEREFORE matter of Judgment reasonable ORDERED law Plaintiff that is to provide and this this motion for action action is will DISMISSED. be of July 2015. Unifed States Circuit 9 IT judgment contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. This, the evidence jury to find in her favor. Defendant's GRANTED dismissing failed as IS a A entered
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
