Brown v. Diversified Distrib. Sys., LLC, No. 14-2685 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn 2002 Brown began working for Diversified. She was promoted and received excellent reviews. In 2009 Brown became an account executive. Brown struggled in the position, repeatedly making serious record-keeping errors. Brown took 12 weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601, after receiving a breast cancer diagnosis. Diversified provided Brown with additional training after she returned, and her 2011 reviews noted improvement, but still identified needed improvement. Diversified was purchased by a new owner, who told Brown’s new manager to rank employees and discharge the lowest performers. After determining that Brown was underperforming, management decided to move Brown to a different position. Diversified accommodated Brown’s high risk pregnancy and did not immediately change her job, but then lost a major account. Diversified accommodated Brown’s request to work from home for several weeks. Brown was fired five days after complaining about her reassignment .The district court granted Diversified summary judgment on all FMLA and state law claims. The Eighth Circuit reversed in part: where an employer has known its stated reason for taking adverse action against an employee for an extended period of time, but only acts after the employee engages in protected activity, the employer's earlier inaction supports an inference of pretext.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Bright, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Family and Medical Leave Act. In action claiming defendant had denied plaintiff an entitlement under the FMLA by failing to restore plaintiff to the account executive position she held before she went on FMLA leave,the district court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment as plaintiff was not restored to the position or an equivalent position; the district court did not err in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that defendant discriminated against her by demoting her to a backup position upon her return from leave as she failed to rebut defendant's evidence that the move was contemplated before she exercised her FMLA rights; plaintiff established a prima facie case that she was terminated in retaliation for complaining about a violation of her FMLA rights, and while defendant provided a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its action (downsizing after the loss of a major account), the temporal proximity of the events and the fact that defendant had known about the need to downsize but only acted after plaintiff engaged in protective activity was enough to create an issue of fact on the claim and the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendant on the retaliation claim; plaintiff failed to show actual damages from the delay in receiving her personnel file and the district court did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim under Minn. Stat. Sec. 181.961; given the similarity between plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim and her claim under Minn. Stat. Sec. 181.932, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the termination letter defendant provided under the provisions of the state law set forth the truthful reasons for plaintiff's discharge, and the district court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant on this state law claim. Judge Bright, concurring. [ September 03, 2015
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.