Plaintiff Shane Small, sued his former employer, Classic Tulsa C, LLC., raising claims various claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Plaintiff’s Factual Allegations
Shane Small began his at-will employment as a finance director with Classic Tulsa in May 2017. His employment was characterized by many absences, some due to medical issues like diverticulitis and others due to various personal reasons. Classic Tulsa had an absence policy requiring notice and documentation for absences, which Small often violated. In November 2018, Small had surgery for diverticulitis and was medically cleared to return to work in December 2018. Around the same time, his mother suffered serious injuries from a dog attack. Small spoke with Classic Tulsa employees about FMLA leave for both his surgery and his mother’s health emergency but claimed he received little guidance or response.
Small’s employment with Classic Tulsa was terminated on January 3, 2019. He believed the termination was due to advising a customer against returning a car sold by a coworker, not because of FMLA-related issues. The termination report cited “attendance” as the reason and included a note about a “reduction in workforce for the new year,” although there was no such reduction in January 2019.
Legal Issues and Court’s Rulings
FMLA Interference
The court found that while Small did request FMLA leave, his repeated violations of the absence policy and failure to provide notification of his absences meant that his FMLA requests did not shield him from the consequences of his frequent absenteeism. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Small would have been dismissed regardless of his request for FMLA leave, and thus summary judgment on the FMLA interference claim was appropriate.
FMLA Retaliation
For the retaliation claim, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Classic Tulsa’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Small’s employment was absenteeism. The court did not find Small’s evidence of pretext—temporal proximity, contradictions in testimony, and a note about a reduction in force—persuasive. The court concluded that Plaintiff had not demonstrated that a reasonable jury could find for him on the discrimination claim, thus granting summary judgment on the FMLA retaliation claim.
Conclusion
The court granted Classic Tulsa’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the defendant had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Small’s employment, and the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to suggest these reasons were pretextual.
Schrag on Law 