Chase v. U.S. Postal Serv.

843 F.3d 553

Robert Chase, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.United States Postal Service; Michael King; and United States, as Sole Defendant on Counts III, IV, and V, Defendants, Appellees.

No. 16-1351

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

December 14, 2016

Lori A. Jodoin , with whom Rodgers, Powers & Schwartz LLP , Boston, MA, were on brief, for appellant.

Christine J. Wichers , Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Carmen M. Ortiz , United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellees.

David Conforto and Conforto Law Group , Boston, MA, on brief for Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.

John Pagliaro and Martin J. Newhouse , Boston, MA, on brief for New England Legal Foundation and Associated Industries of Massachusetts as amicus curiae.

Before Barron, Selya, and Stahl, Circuit Judges.

STAHL, Circuit Judge.

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows an employee up to twelve weeks of leave, in a twelve-month period, for a serious medical condition. 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D). Under the FMLA, an employee's absence from work due to a personal health concern, or that of a spouse, child, or parent, is protected from interference and retaliation by his employer. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a).

Appellant Robert Chase alleged that his employer, the United States Postal Service (USPS), and supervisor Michael King, terminated him from the Brookline, Massachusetts Post Office in retaliation for taking FMLA leave. He brought interference and retaliation claims under 29 U.S.C. § 2615, arguing that King and USPS violated the FMLA by firing him while he was out of work on protected leave.

Following a bench trial, the district court held that King and the USPS did not violate the FMLA on the ground that King, as the USPS decisionmaker, did not have the requisite knowledge of the designation of Chase's medical leave necessary to hold defendants liable under the FMLA. This appeal followed, and we AFFIRM.

I. Facts & Background

Chase worked as a letter carrier at the USPS Brookline Post Office for nearly fourteen years. During this time, Chase never received a negative performance review nor was he subject to any disciplinary action. King, manager of the Brookline Post Office, supervised Chase from 2005 until his termination on September 30, 2011.

A. Accident and Leave of Absence

The accident leading to Chase's leave and allegedly contributing to his termination occurred on July 21, 2010, when an elderly woman fell asleep at the wheel of her car and struck Chase's vehicle while he was parked during his lunch break. Chase was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a serious shoulder injury including damage to his rotator cuff. King personally went to the scene of the accident to observe the severity of the accident and injury and to prepare a report of the incident. King's report noted Chase's shoulder injury.

Following his injury, Chase applied for workers' compensation, despite being discouraged from doing so by King. This request was approved. Chase also applied for and was granted FMLA leave. USPS mailed a Designation/FMLA Approval Notice to Chase and to King which stated that "[Chase's] FMLA leave request is approved. All leave taken for this reason will be designated as FMLA leave."¹ Pursuant to USPS policy, Chase opted for a continuation of pay and was fully compensated for the first 45 days of his leave, after which he received workers' compensation benefits amounting to two-thirds of his salary, tax-free, plus health insurance. Chase's concurrent FMLA leave lasted from July 21, 2010 to October 12, 2010, but he remained on medical leave until September 30, 2011, when he was terminated.

B. Workplace Tensions Between King and Chase

On several occasions, both before and during the course of these events, King publicly mocked Chase and accused him of faking injuries. In September of 2006, Chase had injured his knee while on the job and subsequently missed a week of work. At that time, in apparent response, King made an announcement over the Brookline Post Office loudspeaker, "[w]ill Bob Chase, the injury fraud specialist, please report to the office." In August of 2010, a month after Chase's motor vehicle accident at issue in this case, King posted a job opening on the office bulletin board advertising a position for an "injury compensation specialist." King then made an announcement mocking Chase: "[T]here's a job posted on the bulletin board for an[ ] injury compensation specialist since you're the biggest fraud when it comes to injuries." Brookline Post Office employee Maria Constantino testified that she heard King say that Chase was faking the 2010 shoulder injury he had sustained in the car accident and heard King announce on multiple occasions, "Can I have the carrier on Route 92 [Chase] who is faking an injury come to the office, please?"

C. USPS Disciplinary Action

On September 18, 2010, while on FMLA leave, Chase was arrested with his brother and charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and conspiracy to violate drug laws, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, §§ 32A(a) and 40. The arrests were publicized in a local newspaper, the Brookline Tab. After seeing the article and arrest reports, King notified his then-manager, Lori Bullen, about the arrests, saying, "[i]t would be nice if we can proceed with something." Bullen forwarded King's email to Labor Relations indicating that Chase was "out OWCP [on workers' compensation] to boot."

Following the arrest Chase and King remained in fairly regular communication. During one of these conversations, Chase notified King that the criminal charges would soon be dismissed. King then turned the conversation to Chase's medical leave and began to threaten Chase with a workers' compensation fraud investigation if he did not return to work. Several Brookline Postal workers including Joseph DeMambro, the Chief Union Steward, and another employee, Wanda Jackson, testified that King believed that Chase was faking his current shoulder injury and that King was often suspicious of employees who took medical leave.

On January 18, 2011, King and Chase spoke over the telephone for a pre-disciplinary interview, during which they discussed how Chase's arrest and charges might affect his job. Chase and King ceased communicating after Chase phoned King asking for help to resolve an issue related to his medical leave and King responded, "go [expletive] yourself."

On January 27, 2011, King's manager approved the request that Chase be issued a Notice of Removal. On the following day, Labor Relations prepared for King a Notice for "Failure to Perform Duties in a Satisfactory Manner." King signed that Notice on February 1, 2011, and issued it to Chase. Chase was still on medical leave when he received the Notice of Removal. The dismissal notice cited Chase's arrest and refusal to answer questions during his pre-disciplinary interview. In response to the notice, Chase filed a grievance through his union, but USPS denied the grievance and his case proceeded to arbitration pursuant to the union contract. Before the final arbitration hearing, Chase's criminal case reached a favorable resolution when, on August 31, 2011, the conspiracy charge was dismissed outright and the charge of possession with intent to distribute was reduced to a charge of simple possession, to be dismissed upon completion of one year of pre-trial probation and random drug testing. The grievance process ultimately reached its conclusion on September 30, 2011, when the arbitrator ruled against Chase. The arbitrator issued a final written decision, affirming Chase's removal on the grounds that USPS had shown through clear and convincing evidence that Chase had possessed a Class B illegal drug, which violated USPS policy. He was officially terminated that same day.

D. The FMLA

The FMLA provides an employee suffering from a serious injury or medical condition with up to twelve weeks of protected leave, in a twelve-month period. 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D). An employee is eligible for FMLA leave for each of the following reasons:

(A) Because of the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and in order to care for such son or daughter.

(B) Because of the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care.

(C) In order to care for the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, daughter, or parent has a serious health condition.

(D) Because of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.

(E) Because of any qualifying exigency ... arising out of the fact that the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent of the employee is on covered active duty (... has been notified of an impending call or order to covered active duty) in the Armed Forces.

29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1). In keeping with its comprehensive remedial purpose "to help working men and women balance the conflicting demands of work and personal life," the FMLA should be broadly construed. SeeHodgens v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151, 164 (1st Cir. 1998) (quoting Price v. City of Ft. Wayne, 117 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir. 1997) ); see alsoTcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332, 336, 88 S.Ct. 548, 19 L.Ed.2d 564 (1967) (noting that "remedial legislation should be construed broadly to effectuate its purposes.")

FMLA leave may take many forms, including an unpaid leave of absence, a paid vacation, personal leave, family leave, medical leave, or sick leave. See29 U.S.C. § 2612(c) –(d). FMLA leave may also run concurrently with other types of paid leave such as workers' compensation. 29 C.F.R. § 825.207(d)–(e). When making a request for leave, "the employee need not expressly assert rights under the FMLA or even mention the FMLA" for FMLA protection to attach. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c).

An employer may not interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise any right provided under the FMLA, nor may an employer discharge or...