LAW Bureau of Land Management
Employment law issues
Name
Institution
Date
Team D: Wal-Mart Case Analysis
Week 3—Torts, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Labor Law Issues
Joyce E. Green., Plaintiff, vs. Wal-Mart Stores, East, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 3:11-cv440
PartiesPlaintiff v. Defendant
JOYCE E. GREEN, Plaintiff, vs. WAL-MART STORES, EAST, L.P., Defendant
Civil Case No. 3:11-cv-440
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION
Case Citation: 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89019
According to LexisNexis, the following facts are critical to the outcome of the case:
In the spring of 2003, Donny Frank Ivester, Jr., Plaintiff, purchased a gas can manufactured by Blitz, U.S.A, Inc., from Wal-Mart in Seneca, South Carolina. He used said gas can regularly (seven years) to fuel household machines at his residence (e.g., generator, lawnmower, four-wheeler, and chainsaw) without incident.
The Plaintiff has worked as an employee for Wal-Mart Stores, the Defendant, since she first joined the company in 1997 as a cashier at the Texas store. She was promoted to the position of departmental manager of sporting goods in 2005.
As an employee of the company, the Plaintiff was entitled to FMLA benefits such as leave of absence. During her employment in the company, she took three FMLA leaves three times with permission from the store manager.
The Defendant maintains a coaching policy for its employees which outline a progressive disciplinary plan. The plan provides employees with verbal, written, decision-making coaching before the employee is finally terminated upon receiving the fourth coaching step.
The company also maintains an attendance and punctuality policy. Under this, an absence is either excused or unexcused.
The company also maintains a meal and break policy which requires employees to take a compulsory meal period before working six consecutive hours.
The Plaintiff had seven unexcused leaves between November 2010 and February 2011. She also had four FMLA leave absences in January 2011 which were erroneously marked as unexcused absences.
The Plaintiff was first disciplined by her employer in February 2011 through a verbal coaching concerning her attendance.
She accrued a further seven absences between March 2011 and June 2011 and was given a written coaching for excessive absenteeism.
She received a decision-making day coaching on July 2011 for failure to display urgency in setting modulars in her department at the close of the business day.
Approximately two weeks prior to receiving the decision-making day coaching, the Plaintiff had informed the Defendant that she would need time off from work on August 11, 2011 on medical grounds.
On September 22, 2011, the Plaintiff requested time to leave early which was granted. She planned to work six consecutive hours and then clock out for the day. On that day she worked for six hours and six minutes consecutive without clocking out for a meal period.
On September 2011 the personnel manager noted in her Meal Period Worksheet that the Plaintiff had worked without taking a meal period and the Plaintiff explained that a customer had stopped her on her way to clock out. She received a fourth coaching on this violation of the meal policy and was subsequently terminated as well as alleged misconduct on coaching.
The suit was brought by the Plaintiff, Joyce E. Green, against the Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores. The Defendant then filed for summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s claims before the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio while the Plaintiff opposed the Defendant’s motion.
The US District Judge granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part and denied in part.
IssueAccording to LexisNexis, the following are the central questions on which the case turns:
Does the Plaintiff’s suit satisfy the test for a prima facie case for FMLA interference?
Does the Plaintiff’s suit satisfy the test for a prima facie case for FMLA retaliation?
Is the Plaintiff’s purported meal violation sufficient to justify her termination by the Defendant?
Did the Plaintiff’s meal violation actually motivate the Defendant to terminate the Plaintiff?
Can the Plaintiff’s claim for associational disability discrimination be sustained under the Laws of Ohio?
Does the Plaintiff provide evidence that demonstrates that she suffered serious mental anguish of a nature no reasonable person could be expected to endure?
Does the Plaintiff prove that the Defendant’s conduct was so extreme and outrageous that it went beyond all possible bounds of decency and can be considered completely intolerable in a civilized society?
Do the applicable laws support the plaintiff’s allegations?
According to LexisNexis, the following are applicable laws that apply to this case:
Family and Medical Leave Act (F.M.L.A), 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C)- guarantees an employee the right to “a total of 12 work weeks of leave during any 12-month period . . . [i]n order to care for the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, daughter, or parent has a serious health condition."
Shugart v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 747 F.Supp.2d 938, 944-45 (S.D. Ohio 2010)- provides that test for proving a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. One must prove that:
the defendant intended to cause, or knew or should have known that his actions would result in serious emotional distress;
the defendant's conduct was so extreme and outrageous that it went beyond all possible bounds of decency and can be considered completely intolerable in a civilized community;
the defendant's actions proximately caused psychological injury to the plaintiff; and
the plaintiff suffered serious mental anguish of a nature no reasonable person could be expected to endure.
Holding
How did the court resolve this issue(s), and who won?
The court denied the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s FMLA claims; and
The court granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim of associational disability discrimination; and
The court granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
The logic that supports the court’s decision:
Summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) interference was denied because there remained two issues of fact as to whether the Defendant’s proffered reason for disciplining the Plaintiff and termination from employment were mere pretext to improper FMLA retaliation or violation; and
Summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for associational disability discrimination was granted because of the lack of authority establishing a claim of associational disability discrimination under the laws of the State of Ohio; and
Summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was granted due to lack of evidence demonstrating that the Plaintiff suffered serious mental anguish of a nature no reasonable person could be expected to endure, and that which demonstrates that the Defendant’s conduct was so extreme and outrageous that it went beyond all possible bounds of decency and can be considered completely intolerable in a civilized community.
Page 5
