Plaintiff Karl Kammerer sued the University of Kansas and two supervisors, Brian Anderson and Susan Scholz, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Rehabilitation Act. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Kammerer began teaching at the University’s School of Business in 2017 and renewed his contract in 2020 for another three years. He suffered a back injury that limited his mobility and ability to work, requiring surgery. He also needed thyroid surgery. After informing his supervisors of his need for FMLA leave, the University presented him with a modified contract containing new terms, including a review date and special conditions. When Kammerer returned from leave, he allegedly faced discrimination, including being denied promotion opportunities, receiving a higher course load without additional compensation, and being denied various departmental privileges. After Kammerer filed a conciliation notice, the University placed him on administrative leave until his contract expired and did not renew his contract.
Legal Analysis
FMLA Individual Liability: The court addressed whether public officials could be held individually liable under the FMLA. After analyzing the statutory construction and considering split authority among circuit courts, the court determined that public officials sued in their individual capacities are not “employers” under the FMLA and therefore cannot be held liable.
Rehabilitation Act Damages: The court addressed whether Kammerer could pursue economic damages under the Rehabilitation Act. While the parties agreed that emotional distress damages were not available, the court rejected defendants’ argument that Kammerer needed to show breach of contract damages to maintain his claims. The court found that Kammerer adequately alleged economic injuries supporting his discrimination and retaliation claims.
The court granted the motion to dismiss the FMLA claims against Anderson and Scholz, dismissed the emotional distress damages portion of the Rehabilitation Act claims, but otherwise denied the motion to dismiss the Rehabilitation Act claims against the University.
Schrag on Law 