Johnson v. Dollar Gen.

880 F.Supp.2d 967

Todd JOHNSON, Plaintiff,

v.DOLLAR GENERAL; Dolgencorp, L.L.C.; and Michael Williams, Defendants.

No. C 11–3038–MWB.

United States District Court,

N.D. Iowa,

Central Division.

July 30, 2012.

Eric Michael Updegraff, Stoltze & Updegraff, P.C., Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.

Ellen L. Perlioni, Jason R. Elliott, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Dallas, TX, Karin Johnson, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

+-------------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS  ¦
+-------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                                ¦       ¦
+----+----------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦I.  ¦INTRODUCTION                                                    ¦971    ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.  ¦Factual Background                                          ¦971    ¦
+---+----+------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦   ¦B.  ¦Procedural Background                                       ¦974    ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
+-----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦II.  ¦LEGAL ANALYSIS                                                 ¦977    ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.  ¦Standards For Summary Judgment                              ¦977    ¦
+---+----+------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦   ¦B.  ¦Johnson's FMLA Claims                                       ¦979    ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦    ¦1.  ¦Arguments of the parties                               ¦979   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦The defendants' opening arguments                  ¦979   ¦
+---+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Johnson's response                                 ¦980   ¦
+---+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦The defendants' reply                              ¦982   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦    ¦2.  ¦Analysis                                               ¦982   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦FMLA overview                                      ¦982   ¦
+---+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦FMLA “interference” claims                     ¦983   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦Nature and proof                              ¦983    ¦
+---+---+---+---+-----+----------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦Johnson's “interference” claims           ¦985    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦FMLA “retaliation” claim                       ¦987   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦Nature and proof                              ¦987    ¦
+---+---+---+---+-----+----------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦Johnson's “retaliation” claim             ¦994    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦C.  ¦Johnson's Workers Compensation Retaliation Claim            ¦996    ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦    ¦1.  ¦Arguments of the parties                               ¦996   ¦
+---+----+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦    ¦2.  ¦Analysis                                               ¦997   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Individual liability                               ¦997   ¦
+---+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Proof of the claim                                 ¦998   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦D.  ¦Johnson's Emotional Distress Claim                          ¦1000   ¦
+---+----+------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦   ¦E.  ¦Johnson's Claim For Payment Of A Bonus                      ¦1001   ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦    ¦1.  ¦Arguments of the parties                               ¦1001  ¦
+---+----+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦    ¦2.  ¦Analysis                                               ¦1001  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦      ¦                                                               ¦      ¦
+------+---------------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.  ¦CONCLUSION                                                     ¦1003  ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In this action, which was removed to this federal court, a former store manager alleges that the retail store chain for which he worked and his district manager terminated him when he missed work for five days approximately five months after he suffered a heart attack. He asserts state-law claims of retaliation for processing workers compensation claims and intentional infliction of emotional distress and a federal claim of violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2612–2615, arising from the termination of his employment. He also asserts a claim pursuant to the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law (IWPCL), Iowa Code Ch. 91A, to recover a quarterly bonus allegedly due him at the time his employment ended. The store chain and the district manager have moved for summary judgment on all of the former store manager's claims. They argue, among other things, that there is no genuine dispute that the store manager resigned his job without coercion from his employers; that he did not suffer from a “serious health condition” and cannot meet other requirements of his FMLA claims; that he did not engage in any protected activity related to workers compensation claims and was not subjected to any adverse employment action if he did; that his “emotional distress” claim is pre-empted by Iowa's workers compensation law; and that he was not entitled to any bonus, because he was not employed on the date of the bonus payout. Although the former store manager concedes that his “emotional distress” claim is not viable, he resists summary judgment on his other claims. Thus, I must determine whether any of the former store manager's three disputed claims should be heard by a jury.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Factual Background

I set forth here only those facts, disputed and undisputed, sufficient to put in context the parties' arguments concerning the defendants' motion for summary judgment.Unless otherwise indicated, the facts recited here are undisputed, at least for purposes of summary judgment. I will discuss additional factual allegations, and the extent to which they are or are not disputed or material, if necessary, in my legal analysis.

Defendant Dolgencorp, L.L.C., is a corporation that operates a chain of retail stores under the trade name “Dollar General.” The plaintiff and the defendants have referred to the corporate defendant as “Dollar General,” and I will do the same. Dollar General hired plaintiff Todd Johnson in December 2007 and, after an initial period of training, assigned him to be the manager of the Dollar General store in Garner, Iowa, beginning in January 2008. Store managers report to a district manager or DM. Johnson's DM from June 2008 until the end of Johnson's employment with Dollar General was defendant Michael Williams.

Johnson received an employee handbook outlining Dollar General's FMLA policy, received additional training on that policy, and was aware of posters in his store that addressed FMLA policies and issues. Dollar General's vacation policy generally required scheduling of vacations 30 days in advance, with...