Reed v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

DAPHNE REED Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. Defendant.

Case No. 18-13990

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

June 14, 2021

SENIOR U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT [13]

On December 2, 2019, Plaintiff Daphne Reed, a flight attendant, filed this disability discrimination case against her current employer, Defendant Delta Airlines, Inc., for placing her on probation in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, Plaintiff's Complaint [1] alleges Interference with her FMLA rights (Count I), Retaliation under FMLA (Count II), Retaliation under ADA (Count III), and Hostile Work Environment under ADA (Count VI)¹.

On January 15, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [13]. Plaintiff filed a Response [15] on February 26, 2021. Defendant filed a Reply[17] on March 12, 2021. The Court held a hearing on the Motion [13] on June 11, 2021. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [13].

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

a. Plaintiff's work history and illness

Plaintiff worked as a Flight Attendant for Northwest Airlines until the company merged with Defendant Delta Airlines, Inc. in 2009. (ECF No. 13-2, PageID.100, 102-03). In 2010, she was diagnosed with Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT), an illness that caused a blood clot to form in her left leg. (Id. at 103). Plaintiff underwent surgery to have the blood clot removed from her deep vein, as a result, she developed venous stasis, a chronic vein issue which causes bad circulation. (Id. at 100). Plaintiff chronically experiences leg swelling and pain and often cannot sit or stand for long periods of time. (Id. at 100-01).

Plaintiff's illness flares-up intermittently, requiring her to call out sick from work. (Id. at 109). As a result, she has had 12 weeks of intermittent FMLA leave approved every year since 2010. (Id.). FMLA leave lasts for only 12 months. Therefore, Plaintiff must seek approval for re-certification each year by providing updated medical documentation.

b. Delta's Policies

Delta requires that its employees sign-in at the airport for a flight at least one hour before a domestic flight and one-and-a-half hours before an international flight. (Id. at 103). Additionally, an employee who will be absent needs to call in at least three hours before their sign-in time. (Id.). An employee who is using FMLA leave for an absence is required to state so when they call in. Furthermore, if the employee is initiating a new FMLA claim, they must also call Sedgwick, Delta's third-party administrator, on the same day. (Id. at 107).

Late sign-ins and absences not covered by FMLA, are considered "unaccountable" and are placed on an employee's reliability record. (ECF No. 13-2, PageID.148). If an employee accrues several late sign-ins and/or unaccountable absences, Delta may take one of several disciplinary actions against them: Verbal Coaching, Written Coaching, Corrective Action Notice, and Final Corrective Action Notice. (ECF No. 13-5); (ECF No. 13-3, PageID.134). Each action remains on an employee's file for 12, 18, 24, and 36 months, respectively. (Id.). The coachings are considered "counseling session[s]" from an employee's supervisor about issues in their work performance, while notices are given if an employee fails to show improvement from previous coaching or commits a serious infraction. (Id.). A Final Corrective notice may result in a review for termination. (Id.).

c. Plaintiff's absences and discipline

Plaintiff has been issued several coachings and one Corrective Action Notice, due to her absences and late-sign ins. (ECF No. 13-8). Plaintiff, however, disputes three absences that she claims should have been covered by FMLA, and not counted against her.

July 21, 2017 absence. Prior to this date, Plaintiff had an open FMLA claim which ran from December 9, 2016 to May 26, 2017. (ECF No. 13-12). Plaintiff did not send in medical documentation to re-certify her claim. (ECF No. 13-14, PageID.266). Despite this, Plaintiff experienced a flare-up on this date and called in sick. (ECF No. 13-15, PageID.272). Because Plaintiff did not have an approved FMLA claim on file, Delta recorded this against her as an unaccountable absence. (Id.).

August 31, 2017 absence and late call-in. Still without a certification, Plaintiff called in sick on this day. (ECF No. 13-14, PageID.266). Additionally, Plaintiff did not call at least three hours before her sign-in time, as required by policy. (ECF No. 13-15, PageID.271). Because she did not have an approved FMLA claim and her call-in was late, Delta recorded this as an unaccountable absence. As a result, Plaintiff received a Written Coaching on September 16, 2017. (ECF No. 13-12, PageID.172). During the coaching session, Plaintiff agreed that she needed to workon her reliability. (Id.). Plaintiff also submitted updated medical documentation and for July 16, 2017 to July 16, 2018. (ECF No. 16-3, PageID.448-450). Delta then approved Plaintiff for FMLA leave for August 31, 2017 to July 16, 2018. (ECF No. 15-4, PageID.346). However, Delta did not retroactively cover Plaintiff's August 31st absence, because she was late signing in. (ECF No. 13-4, PageID.264). Plaintiff appealed this decision and the appeal was denied on December 18, 2017. (ECF No. 13-19).

October 2, 2017 absence and late call-in. On this date, Plaintiff called in sick during a multi-day international flight trip. On the call, Plaintiff requested FMLA leave. However, the administrator did not hear her mention FMLA, resulting in her request being denied. (ECF No. 13-2, PageID.113). After several back and forth phone calls, a Delta administrator found the record of the original phone call, confirmed that Plaintiff requested FMLA leave, and ultimately approved her leave on January 1, 2018. (Id. at 112-13). Prior to this approval, Plaintiff received an Informal Verbal Coaching on November 14, 2017. (ECF No. 13-8, PageID.171). The report states that the purpose of the coaching was for her late sign-in and that Plaintiff told her supervisor that her absence would be approved for FMLA by Sedgwick. (Id.).

On March 5, 2019, Plaintiff received a Corrective Action Notice for three absences and five late sign-ins on her previous 12-month reliability record. (ECF No. 13-22). Although her previous coachings were referenced on the notice, it does not state that she received the notice because of her previous coachings. (Id.). The notice was active on her record for 24 months and prevented Plaintiff from transferring and seeking a promotion while it was active. (ECF No. 13-22). The notice expired on March 5, 2021. (ECF No. 13-8, PageID.171). Plaintiff still works for Delta.

Plaintiff a launched an EEOC claim for discrimination and received a notice of no findings on September 26, 2018. (ECF No. 13-23). Plaintiff sues claiming that her disciplinary actions were an interference with and/or a retaliation against her FMLA leave requests. She also claims that Delta created a hostile work environment, which caused her to be diagnosed with anxiety and depression. (ECF No. 13-2, PageID.102).

LEGAL STANDARD

Defendant moves for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56 (a). The moving party has the burden of establishing that there are no genuine issuesof material fact, which may be accomplished by demonstrating that the nonmoving party lacks evidence to support an essential element of its case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A genuine issue for trial exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

ANALYSIS

I. Count I: FMLA Interference

To establish a FMLA interference claim, Plaintiff must show that: "(1) she was an eligible employee; (2) her employer was a covered employer; (3) she was entitled to leave under the FMLA; (4) she gave her employer notice of her intent to take leave; and (5) her employer denied her FMLA benefits or interfered with FMLA benefits or rights to which she was entitled." Crawford v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 531 F. App'x 622, 625 (6th Cir. 2013) (internal citations omitted). Where "an employer interferes with the FMLA-created right to medical leave or to reinstatement following the leave, a violation has occurred, regardless of the intent of the employer." Marshall v. The Rawlings Co. LLC, 854 F.3d 368, 384 (6th Cir. 2017) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). "An employer may require that [an] eligible employee obtain subsequent [medical] re-certifications on a reasonable basis." Graham v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tenn., Inc., 521 F. App'x419, 423 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 2613(e)) (emphasis in original). If the employee fails to provide the requested certification, the employer may deny the employee's request for FMLA leave. Id.

Plaintiff's FMLA interference claim fails, because she cannot show that she was entitled to leave under the FMLA and that Delta denied her FMLA benefits to which she was entitled. Donald v. Sybra, Inc., 667 F.3d 757, 761 (6th Cir. 2012). Defendant correctly argues that Plaintiff was denied FMLA approval for her absences on July 21, 2017 and August 31, 2017, because she did not have an active medical certification at the time of her absence. The record shows that Plaintiff had a medical certification for FMLA leave from December 9, 2016 to May 26, 3017. (ECF No. 13-12). The document approving this certification explicitly states that if Plaintiff's leave needed to be modified or extended beyond what was currently approved, then her doctor would need to provide additional or updated documentation. (Id.).

Plaintiff claims that she...