Victoria Anderson v. Discovery Communications, LLC , 517 F. App'x 190 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-2195
    VICTORIA ANDERSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; JANELL COLES; LISA WILLIAMS-
    FAUNTROY; DOE DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 4,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.      Alexander Williams, Jr., District
    Judge. (8:08-cv-02424-AW)
    Argued:   January 30, 2013                 Decided:   April 5, 2013
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ARGUED: Elaine Lynette Fitch, KALIJARVI, CHUZI, NEWMAN & FITCH,
    PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.       Mark David Harris,
    PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees.      ON
    BRIEF: George M. Chuzi, KALIJARVI, CHUZI, NEWMAN & FITCH, PC,
    Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Amanda D. Haverstick, Julianne
    M. Apostolopoulos, PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP, Newark, New Jersey, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Victoria       Anderson        appeals          from        the    district      court’s
    judgment     granting       summary           judgment       to    her     former      employer
    Discovery         Communications,             LLC,       (“Discovery”)           and      other
    individual defendants on her claims brought under the Americans
    with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Montgomery County, Maryland,
    Human Rights Act (“MCHRA”), and the Family Medical Leave Act
    (“FMLA”).         For     the    reasons       set    forth       below,    we   affirm    the
    judgment of the district court.
    I.     Factual Background & Proceedings Below
    From    August       2004     to        January     2007,         Discovery      employed
    Anderson     as    an   attorney         in    the    Programming,         Production,      and
    Talent    Group     (“the        Group”)      of     Discovery’s         Legal   Department.
    Defendant-Appellee Janell Coles was the Director of the Group,
    and     Anderson’s        direct         supervisor;         Defendant-Appellee           Lisa
    Williams-Fauntroy was Vice President of the Group, and Coles’
    direct supervisor. 1             Although Anderson received praise for her
    strong     technical,           legal,     and       drafting       skills,      her    annual
    performance reviews repeatedly indicated needing improvement in
    areas      such      as         “effectively          organizing,          planning,       and
    1
    For ease of reference, all of the Defendants (Appellees
    here) will be referred to collectively as “Discovery.”
    2
    prioritizing work,” working on her demeanor and tone, and in
    developing          her     interpersonal      skills      with     both    colleagues        and
    clients.          (J.A. 659-60.)
    In         October     2006, 2    Anderson      was     in    California         for     a
    conference when she became ill and visited a local doctor, who
    advised her, inter alia, that she may have a sleep impairment.
    Upon her return to Maryland, Anderson requested and was granted
    FMLA leave from October 20 to November 15, during which time she
    consulted with her personal physician, Dr. Collin D. Cullen, and
    a   sleep         specialist,      Dr.    Andrew      P.   Tucker.          The    physicians
    determined          that     Anderson’s    laboratory         and    sleep      test    results
    were normal, and excluded sleep apnea as a diagnosis.                                      Since
    Anderson reported that she was only sleeping between two and
    four       hours     each     night,     the   physicians         concluded       she    likely
    suffered          from    “fatigue,”     “sleep      deprivation,”         and    “insomnia.”
    (J.A. 306-09.)              The physicians gave Anderson advice on falling
    and staying asleep and a prescription for Ambien.
    In    late        November,     Anderson     returned       to    Dr.     Cullen,     and
    based        on    Anderson’s      statements        indicating          that    her    overall
    condition           was     improving,     Dr.       Cullen    recommended          that      she
    “[r]eturn to full duty with hour restriction to 8 hours per
    day.”        (J.A. 306, 308.)            In two follow-up appointments with Dr.
    2
    All dates are in 2006, unless otherwise noted.
    3
    Tucker      at   the    end     of   November    and   mid-December,      Dr.    Tucker
    indicated that he placed “no restrictions” on Anderson’s ability
    to work, and that he had no reason to believe that she was
    “significantly impaired” by that point.                     (J.A. 327.)         At his
    deposition, Dr. Tucker testified that as of December 19, there
    was no basis for placing Anderson on disability “from a sleep
    standpoint.”       (J.A. 325-26.)
    When she returned to work, Anderson asked her supervisors
    to be allowed a maximum 8-hour work day.                         At their request,
    Anderson submitted a proposal, but only committed to work in the
    office between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m.                 Moreover, she stated that she
    would not track her personal, break, or lunch time or account
    for her specific workload unless other members of the Group were
    also required to do so.                 Anderson’s supervisors reviewed the
    proposal and denied her request, stating that the proposal would
    not enable her to perform the responsibilities of her job, which
    included a 40-hour minimum work week, presence in the office
    during core business hours of 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through
    Friday,      and       flexibility      to   work      outside    those     hours    as
    international transactions required.
    On    January     3,     2007,   Williams-Fauntroy        informed    Anderson
    that     Discovery        was     terminating     her    employment.            At   her
    deposition, Anderson stated that Williams-Fauntroy told her that
    her “performance was not at all a factor in her termination,”
    4
    and that the “sole reason” for her termination was her failure
    to update her time records.            (J.A. 157-58.)      Williams-Fauntroy
    stated in her deposition that she informed Anderson that “she
    was being terminated because [Discovery] determined that she is
    untrustworthy and that she had not accurately represented her
    time entries [documenting her work hours] as requested by her
    manager.”   (J.A. 217.)         Williams-Fauntroy also recounted several
    factors underlying that decision, many of which she had listed
    in a bullet-point note she had prepared prior to meeting with
    Anderson on January 3, but which she described in greater detail
    during her deposition.          Those factors included Anderson’s long-
    term “insubordination”; her refusal to accept a performance plan
    schedule following her mid-year (2006) review; her “[c]ombative,
    difficult, manipulating” nature, which had led to “difficulties”
    with    clients     and     colleagues,     as   well    as    “skewing”   and
    misrepresenting         prior     discussions     with        co-workers   and
    supervisors;      and     her   “manipulating”   time    sheets    documenting
    vacation and sick leave, coupled with her subsequent refusal to
    correct them when confronted with evidence establishing that she
    had inaccurately recorded her time.          (J.A. 220, 223-24.)
    Anderson filed a complaint in the United States District
    Court for the District of Maryland, alleging claims of failure
    5
    to accommodate and retaliation under the ADA and MCHRA, 3 and
    retaliation      and     interference       of    rights     under    the    FMLA.
    Following discovery, Discovery moved for summary judgment, which
    the   district    court    granted.         The   district    court   held    that
    Anderson was not an          “individual with a disability” under the
    ADA and therefore could not establish a prima facie case of
    failure to accommodate; that even if she could establish a prima
    facie     case   of    retaliation,   Anderson      had    not   presented     any
    evidence    indicating     Discovery’s      legitimate,      non-discriminatory
    reasons for firing her were a pretext; that Anderson did not
    have a “serious medical condition” entitling her to FMLA leave;
    and that Anderson had not given Discovery adequate notice of her
    need for FMLA leave.         Anderson v. Discovery Commc’ns, LLC, 
    814 F. Supp. 2d 562
    , 569-72 (D. Md. 2011).
    Anderson noted a timely appeal, and we have jurisdiction
    under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
    3
    Because Maryland has applied the MCHRA by looking to ADA
    case law, it is appropriate to consider those claims together,
    as the district court did. See Ridgely v. Montgomery Cnty., 
    883 A.2d 182
    , 193 (Md. Ct. App. 2005) (stating that the MCHRA and
    ADA contain “almost identical” definitions of “disability” and
    “qualified individual with a disability”).       Similarly, our
    analysis of the ADA claims encompasses our analysis of
    Anderson’s MCHRA claims.
    6
    II.     Standard of Review
    We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de
    novo, applying the same standard used by the district court.
    Henry v. Purnell, 
    652 F.3d 524
    , 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
    Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue
    of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment
    as a matter of law.      Id.     The facts must be viewed in the light
    most favorable to the non-moving party, id., which we do here.
    III.   ADA Claims
    The    ADA   prohibits    discrimination     in    employment   decisions
    against “individual[s] on the basis of disability.”              42 U.S.C. §
    12112(a).    A threshold issue is whether a plaintiff has adduced
    evidence showing that she is such a person, i.e., that she is an
    individual with a disability as defined by the statute.                    See
    Rohan v. Networks Presentations LLC, 
    375 F.3d 266
    , 272 (4th Cir.
    2004) (stating that a plaintiff is first required “to produce
    evidence that she is . . . disabled.”).                In relevant part, the
    ADA defines a “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment
    that substantially limits one or more major life activities of
    such individual.” 4      42 U.S.C. § 12102(a)(A).            Thus, having a
    4
    The ADA lists three definitions of “disability,” but
    Anderson relies only on this one.   See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)
    (2007).
    7
    “physical or mental impairment” is not sufficient on its own to
    establish an ADA-cognizable disability, nor is showing that the
    impairment affects “one or more major life activities.” 5                               An
    individual must also show she is “substantially limit[ed]” as a
    result of the impairment.                See Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc.,
    
    527 U.S. 471
    , 489 (1999).
    Anderson contends that the record evidence shows a genuine
    issue       of        material   fact     exists      as     to     whether     she    was
    “substantially impaired” in her major life activity of sleeping.
    This       is    so,    she   submits,     because     the    record     reflects       her
    diagnosis of insomnia as a result of averaging less than four
    hours of sleep at night, which is less than the average person.
    In     addition,          Anderson      contends      that    the     district        court
    improperly considered the effect her lack of sleep had on her
    daytime productivity and work, thus holding her to a heightened
    standard         of    showing   impairment      in   more    than    one     major    life
    activity.         She further asserts that the district court failed to
    view the evidence in the light most favorable to her. 6
    5
    Although the applicable version of the ADA does not
    expressly delineate “sleeping” as a “major life activity,” every
    court to address the issue, including this one, has concluded or
    assumed that it is. See EEOC v. Sara Lee Corp., 
    237 F.3d 349
    ,
    352 (4th Cir. 2001); see also EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chem.
    Co., LP, 
    570 F.3d 606
    , 616 (5th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases).
    6
    Anderson also maintains that the district court erred in
    refusing to consider her diagnosis of dysthymic disorder because
    (Continued)
    8
    We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court
    did not err in granting summary judgment on this claim.                   Cf.
    Anderson, 814 F. Supp. 2d at 569-72.               Viewing the evidence in
    the light most favorable to Anderson, the evidence simply does
    not support the conclusion that she was “substantially impaired”
    at   the   time    Discovery   terminated    her   employment.    Moreover,
    considering       the   district   court’s   statements   in   context,   the
    court did not hold Anderson to an improper standard.             Nor did it
    misapply the standard for granting summary judgment.
    she “was not seeking to have this considered as a separate
    disability, but rather, submitted that her impairment of
    dysthymic   disorder  impacted  the   major   life  activity  of
    sleeping.” (Opening Br. 40.) The district court appropriately
    declined to consider this diagnosis as part of Anderson’s claim
    given that she relied on it for the first time in opposing
    summary judgment. See Conley v. Gibson, 
    355 U.S. 41
    , 47 (1957)
    (stating that a complaint must give “fair notice of what the
    plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests”)
    (emphasis added). Moreover, the analysis as to whether Anderson
    was “substantially limited” as a result of impairment to her
    ability to sleep would be the same regardless of the underlying
    impairment creating her problems sleeping.      See 29 C.F.R. §
    1630.2(j).
    On appeal, Anderson raises for the first time her diagnosis
    of anxiety as a basis for an ADA claim.     Given her failure to
    raise it to the district court, we need not address this claim
    either. Williams v. Prof’l Transp. Inc., 
    294 F.3d 607
    , 614 (4th
    Cir. 2002) (“[In this circuit,] issues raised for the first time
    on appeal are generally not considered absent exceptional
    circumstances.”).
    9
    Under the Supreme Court precedent applicable to Anderson’s
    case, 7 the term “substantially” as used in the ADA, is “to be
    interpreted    strictly      to   create     a    demanding    standard       for
    qualifying    as   disabled.”       Toyota   Motor    Mfg.,    Ky.,    Inc.    v.
    Williams, 
    534 U.S. 184
    , 197 (2002).              “[A]n individual must have
    an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual
    from doing activities that are of central importance to most
    people’s   daily   lives.     The   impairment’s      impact   must    also    be
    permanent or long term.”          Id. at 198.        As the Supreme Court
    explained:
    It is insufficient for individuals attempting to prove
    disability status under this test to merely submit
    evidence of a medical diagnosis of an impairment.
    Instead, the ADA requires those claiming the Act’s
    protection . . . to prove a disability by offering
    evidence that the extent of the limitation [caused by
    their impairment] in terms of their own experience . .
    . is substantial.
    Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sutton, 527
    U.S. at 482 (“A ‘disability’ exists only where an impairment
    ‘substantially     limits’   a    major    life   activity,    not    where   it
    7
    In 2008, Congress amended the ADA considerably, broadening
    the Supreme Court’s narrow reading of the statute.          These
    amendments do not apply to Anderson’s case, however, because she
    was terminated prior to their enactment.     See Reynolds v. Am.
    Nat’l Red Cross, 
    701 F.3d 143
    , 151-52 (4th Cir. 2012) (joining
    other circuits court of appeals in holding that the 2008 ADA
    amendments do not apply retroactively).
    10
    ‘might,’    ‘could,’   or    ‘would’        be    substantially   limiting      if
    mitigating measures were not taken.”).
    Applying these principles to Anderson’s case, the record
    fails to show a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
    Anderson suffered from a disability cognizable under the ADA.
    Anderson’s own doctors recounted that during their appointments
    with her in late November and mid-December, Anderson stated that
    her condition had “improved since time off” and that despite
    getting “much less sleep than what she had historically,” she
    “awakes    feeling   fully   refreshed,”         was   “functioning    normally,”
    and was not “feeling any functional impairment as a result” of
    getting less sleep.      (J.A. 516, 315-17, 325, 329-30, 333.)                 In
    addition, Anderson’s sleep test results were “normal” and she
    slept   “more   than   seven    hours.”           (J.A.   325.)       Dr.   Tucker
    specifically indicated that as of Anderson’s appointment with
    him on December 19, there was no basis “from a sleep standpoint”
    to place Anderson on disability because her functioning was not
    significantly impaired as of late November.               (J.A. 325-26.)
    While Anderson is entitled to have the evidence viewed in
    the light most favorable to her,
    only reasonable inferences from the evidence need be
    considered by the court . . . . Permissible inferences
    must   still  be   within   the range   of  reasonable
    probability, however, and it is the duty of the court
    to withdraw the case from the jury when the necessary
    inference is so tenuous that it merely rests upon
    speculation and conjecture.
    11
    Sylvia Dev. Corp. v. Calvert Cnty., 
    48 F.3d 810
    , 818 (4th Cir.
    1995).    As we previously recognized, “[m]any individuals fail to
    receive a full night of sleep.”                EEOC v. Sara Lee Corp., 
    237 F.3d 349
    ,   352   (4th    Cir.    2001)     (quoting       Ford    Motor    Co.   v.
    McDavid, 
    259 F.2d 261
    , 266 (4th Cir. 1958)).                          Sleep patterns
    vary between individuals and even during a person’s lifetime,
    and on this record, Anderson simply failed to present evidence
    creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was
    “substantially impaired” in December 2006 as a result of her
    insomnia.      Cf. EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 
    570 F.3d 606
    ,
    618 (5th Cir. 2009) (“In an ADA case, the relevant time for
    assessing the existence of a [cognizable] disability is the time
    of the adverse employment action.”).                  Accordingly, the district
    court    did   not   err    in    concluding     that       Anderson    was    not   an
    “individual with a disability” under the ADA.
    Anderson’s    ADA    retaliation       claim    is     based    on   the   ADA’s
    prohibition     of   discrimination         “against    any    individual      because
    such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by
    [the ADA] or because such individual made a charge” thereunder.
    42 U.S.C. § 12203.           To survive summary judgment on her ADA
    retaliation       claim,         Anderson     had      to      produce        evidence
    demonstrating that (1) she engaged in conduct protected by the
    ADA; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action subsequent to
    12
    engaging in the protected conduct; and (3) a causal link exists
    between the protected activity and the adverse action.                             Freilich
    v. Upper Chesapeake Health, Inc., 
    313 F.3d 205
    , 216 (4th Cir.
    2002).
    Anderson        sought     to    prove       causation      using    the     burden-
    shifting framework established for Title VII cases in McDonnell
    Douglas Corp. v. Green, 
    411 U.S. 792
    , 802 (1973).                          Anderson thus
    bore the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
    discrimination;          if     successful,         the   burden    then        shifted    to
    Discovery to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
    its action; thereafter, the burden returned to Anderson to show
    by a preponderance of evidence that the proffered reason was a
    pretext for discrimination or retaliation.                      Laber v. Harvey, 
    438 F.3d 404
    , 432 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
    Anderson contends the district court erred in holding that
    she had failed to set forth evidence from which a jury could
    conclude that Discovery’s nondiscriminatory explanation for its
    action   was   a       pretext.         She    asserts    Discovery        had    “shifting
    justifications”         for     terminating         her   and   that       is    sufficient
    reason to deny summary judgment.                    Specifically, she asserts that
    at the time of her termination, Williams-Fauntroy confirmed that
    the “sole” reason for the decision was her failure to amend her
    time   entries,        but    that     since    litigation      commenced,        Discovery
    manufactured       a     host     of    additional        reasons     to    support       its
    13
    decision.          As such, she posits that Discovery’s questionable
    credibility supports an inference of pretext.
    We    agree    with     the       district         court         that     even      assuming
    Anderson      has    set    forth       a    prima       facie      case       of   retaliation,
    Discovery     has    provided       a       legitimate,        nondiscriminatory              reason
    for terminating her employment, and no genuine issue of material
    fact   calls       that    reason       into      question         as   pretext.          Anderson
    repeatedly         misrepresents            the     record         evidence         and    parrots
    statements of law regarding pretext, but the record evidence
    simply      does    not    support       her      contention.             From      the    time   of
    Anderson’s         actual     discharge            through          litigation            Discovery
    provided      specific      examples          of       that   behavior,          and      different
    individuals characterized her conduct using slightly different
    examples     or     terminology,         but      Discovery’s           explanation        for    its
    decision has been consistent: Anderson’s untrustworthiness and
    poor communication skills.
    Far from being the “sole” reason for her termination, the
    accuracy of Anderson’s time sheets was the proverbial straw that
    broke the camel’s back, i.e., the last in a line and immediate
    precipitating factor in a long, documented history of Anderson’s
    inability to communicate accurately and truthfully with her co-
    workers.       This record diverges from cases where we have held
    that   an    employer’s       changing            explanations          for     its     employment
    decision     gave    rise    to     an      inference         of    pretext.           See,    e.g.,
    14
    Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 
    290 F.3d 639
    , 646
    (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing how a shift both in the detail and
    the    explanation      for    the       employer’s         decision         gave      them    “the
    flavor of post-hoc rationalizations”); EEOC v. Sears Roebuck &
    Co.,    
    243 F.3d 846
    ,    853       (4th       Cir.     2001)       (stating       that     an
    employer’s          inconsistent               explanations                 and        different
    justifications        were    probative         of       pretext).          Anderson     “cannot
    seek to expose [Discovery’s] rationale as pretextual by focusing
    on     minor   discrepancies         that           do     not     cast      doubt       on     the
    explanation’s validity[.]”                 Hux v. City of Newport News, 
    451 F.3d 311
    , 315 (4th Cir. 2006).                   In the absence of such evidence
    of     pretext,     “[i]t     is    not     our      province          to    decide      whether
    [Discovery’s]         reason       was     wise,           fair,     or       even      correct,
    ultimately, so long as it truly was the reason for [Anderson’s]
    termination.”         DeJarnette v. Corning, Inc., 
    133 F.3d 293
    , 299
    (4th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks omitted).
    Discovery       articulated         a     legitimate,             non-discriminatory
    reason for Anderson’s termination of employment, and the record
    is    devoid   of     evidence     that     would         create     a    genuine       issue    of
    material fact as to whether that explanation was mere pretext.
    Consequently,         the    district      court          did    not      err     in    granting
    Discovery summary judgment on Anderson’s ADA retaliation claim.
    15
    IV.   FMLA Claims
    Anderson      also    challenges        the      district     court’s   grant    of
    summary      judgment       to    Discovery        on   her   FMLA    retaliation      and
    interference claims.              Anderson alleged that Discovery violated
    the FMLA by unlawfully interfering with her right to take a
    reduced work schedule upon her return to work in November, and
    that   her    subsequent         termination       constituted       retaliation    under
    the FMLA.       Having reviewed the record, as well as the parties’
    arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not
    err in granting summary judgment to Discovery. 8
    The FMLA allows certain employees to take a total of “12
    work weeks of leave” during a twelve-month period for a “serious
    health condition” that makes the employee “unable to perform the
    functions of” her job.                29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D).          “FMLA claims
    arising      under   [a]     retaliation       theory      are     analogous   to   those
    derived under Title VII and so are analyzed under the burden-
    shifting      framework          of    McDonnell        Douglas[.]”       Yashenko     v.
    Harrah’s NC Casino Co., 
    446 F.3d 541
    , 550-51 (4th Cir. 2006).
    8
    The district court concluded Anderson’s FMLA claims failed
    because she did not have a “serious health condition” and had
    not provided adequate notice to Discovery of her need for FMLA
    leave.   We affirm on different grounds than relied on by the
    district court. See Jackson v. Kimel, 
    992 F.2d 1318
    , 1322 (4th
    Cir. 1993) (“In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, we can
    affirm on any legal ground supported by the record and are not
    limited to the grounds relied on by the district court.”).
    16
    Anderson’s FMLA retaliation claim thus fails for the same reason
    her     ADA    retaliation        claim         failed:      the    absence      of    evidence
    indicating that Discovery’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
    for terminating Anderson was pretext for unlawful behavior.                                    See
    infra pp. 12-15.
    In order to establish a claim for violation of the FMLA,
    including       interference          of   rights       thereunder,        Anderson      had    to
    prove    not    only      the    fact      of    interference,        but     also     that    the
    violation       prejudiced        her      in    some    way.      Ragsdale      v.   Wolverine
    World    Wide,       Inc.,      
    535 U.S. 81
    ,     89   (2002);       see   29    U.S.C.    §
    2617(a)(1).           Such prejudice can be proven by showing that the
    employee       lost       compensation          or    benefits       “by     reason     of     the
    violation,” id. § 2617(a)(1)(A)(i)(I); sustains other monetary
    losses        “as     a    direct       result        of     the     violation,”         id.     §
    2617(a)(1)(A)(i)(II); or suffers some loss in employment status
    remediable          through      “appropriate”           equitable         relief,     such     as
    employment, reinstatement, or promotion, id. § 2617(a)(1)(B).
    Here,         the   only    injury        Anderson     alleged       as    a    result    of
    Discovery’s alleged unlawful denial of her request for a reduced
    work schedule was that she was not permitted to work a reduced
    schedule.       She does not claim that she lost any compensation or
    benefits, sustained other monetary loss, or suffered loss in
    employment status as a result of the purported interference.
    While Anderson sought $786,000 back pay and reinstatement, she
    17
    has failed to show that she is entitled to any of these amounts.
    As discussed above, Anderson’s termination of employment was a
    separate and unrelated event, and from the record it appears
    that   Anderson    remained   employed   and   was   given    full    benefits
    until her termination.        As such, her interference claim must
    also fail.     See Yashenko, 446 F.3d at 549-50 (holding that where
    employee was terminated due to a legitimate reason, he cannot
    show that he is entitled to reinstatement even if the employer
    otherwise interfered with his FMLA rights by denying leave).
    V.
    For   the   aforementioned   reasons,   we    affirm    the    district
    court’s      judgment   awarding    summary    judgment       in     favor   of
    Discovery.
    AFFIRMED
    18
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-2195

Citation Numbers: 517 F. App'x 190

Judges: Agee, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 4/5/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023

Authorities (21)

perry-williams-teddi-williams-dba-williams-transport-v-professional , 294 F.3d 607 ( 2002 )

75-fair-emplpraccas-bna-1088-72-empl-prac-dec-p-45103-regina-w , 133 F.3d 293 ( 1998 )

Tess Rohan v. Networks Presentations LLC , 375 F.3d 266 ( 2004 )

Edward Yashenko v. Harrah's Nc Casino Company, LLC , 446 F.3d 541 ( 2006 )

Crystal R. Jackson v. Randy Kimel at & T Technologies, Inc. , 992 F.2d 1318 ( 1993 )

Ford Motor Company v. J. W. McDavid , 259 F.2d 261 ( 1958 )

Jonnie Sue Hux v. City of Newport News, Virginia , 451 F.3d 311 ( 2006 )

Stan Laber v. Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army , 438 F.3d 404 ( 2006 )

Henry v. Purnell , 652 F.3d 524 ( 2011 )

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sara Lee ... , 237 F.3d 349 ( 2001 )

equal-employment-opportunity-commission-and-francisco-g-santana-v-sears , 243 F.3d 846 ( 2001 )

sylvia-development-corporation-karel-dohnal-individually-and-as-agent-for , 48 F.3d 810 ( 1995 )

linda-freilich-md-pa-linda-freilich-md-v-upper-chesapeake-health , 313 F.3d 205 ( 2002 )

joyce-k-dennis-v-columbia-colleton-medical-center-incorporated-and , 290 F.3d 639 ( 2002 )

Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc. , 122 S. Ct. 1155 ( 2002 )

Ridgely v. Montgomery County , 164 Md. App. 214 ( 2005 )

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chevron Phillips ... , 570 F.3d 606 ( 2009 )

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 93 S. Ct. 1817 ( 1973 )

Conley v. Gibson , 78 S. Ct. 99 ( 1957 )

Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. , 119 S. Ct. 2139 ( 1999 )

View All Authorities »