Plaintiff Tonya C. Huber sued defendant Westar Foods, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, raising claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act (“NFEPA”), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The district court granted summary judgment to Westar on all claims. Huber appeals the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Factual Overview
Westar Foods hired Tonya Huber in December 2018 as a store manager for a Hardee’s restaurant in Nebraska. Soon after starting her job, Huber was diagnosed with diabetes and began taking insulin at work. Huber struggled to find a suitable room-temperature location to store her insulin and asked her district managers, Matt Thayer and later Cindy Kelchen, for help. Both managers were unresponsive to her requests.
In December 2019, Huber experienced a diabetic episode that caused her to miss work for two consecutive days without notifying Westar. When Huber called Kelchen on the second day, Kelchen yelled at her for not following the company’s call-in policy. Immediately after the call, Kelchen spoke with Westar’s owner, Frank Westermajer, and they decided to terminate Huber’s employment.
Following her diabetic episode, Huber requested FMLA paperwork from Westar’s HR representative, Amy Rowe, but did not receive a response. Westar sent Huber a termination letter stating that she was fired for failing to follow the company’s notice procedures for her absences on December 20 and 21, 2019.
Legal Analysis
ADA and NFEPA Discrimination Claims: The court found that Huber presented sufficient evidence to raise genuine issues of fact regarding whether Westar’s reason for terminating her was pretextual. The court determined that a reasonable jury could conclude that Huber’s diabetic episode was not independent from her firing and that Westar’s reason for terminating her lacked a basis in fact. Additionally, the court found that Huber presented evidence of discriminatory animus by her supervisors, Kelchen and Thayer, which could be attributed to Westar’s decision to terminate her employment.
FMLA Interference Claim: The court concluded that genuine issues of fact existed as to whether Westar was on notice of Huber’s need for FMLA leave prior to its decision to terminate her, whether Huber notified Westar as soon as practicable, and whether there was a causal connection between Huber’s diabetic episode and her failure to abide by Westar’s call-in policy.
FMLA Retaliation Claim: The court found that genuine issues of fact remained regarding whether Huber provided notice to Westar of her need for FMLA leave, whether she provided notice as soon as practicable, and whether there was a causal connection between her FMLA rights and Westar’s termination decision.
Dissenting Opinion
Judge Stras, in his dissenting opinion, argued that no reasonable jury could find Westar liable for disability discrimination based on the record. He contended that the court’s decision created a new “intertwinement test” that was inconsistent with the ADA and would lead to confusion for employers when disciplining employees for misconduct related to their disabilities.
The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Westar on Huber’s ADA, NFEPA, and FMLA claims and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Schrag on Law 