JOSH PARKER v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO (2024)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendant Union Pacific Railroad's (“UP”) motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement, Filing No. 11, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(e). UP argues that Plaintiff has alleged only conclusory statements under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1). UP contends that Plaintiff Josh Parker should be required to allege facts showing that he is an “eligible employee,” allege facts that he provided UP adequate and timely notice, and also state whether he is attempting to assert a discrimination or a retaliation claim under 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2), and if so, again allege that he is an “eligible employee” and that he provided UP adequate and timely notice.

BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges he was receiving treatment from a health care provider for post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). His request for qualifying leave was made on June 27, 2023, and approved by UP on July 20, 2023. Plaintiff missed work on July 15 and 16, 2023, due to his PTSD. On February 8, 2024, Plaintiff was late for work. UP then terminated him for these 3 absences. Plaintiff argues that the termination was due to his FMLA qualifying condition.

Union Pacific argues that the complaint is devoid of any allegations that show Plaintiff was an “eligible employee” under FMLA. UP contends that Plaintiff provides no facts that show UP “knew” that the July 15 and 16 absences were related to his PTSD. In addition, UP contends that there are no facts supporting Plaintiff's claim regarding discrimination or retaliation under § 2615(a)(2), or that his rights were interfered with under the § 2615(a)(1) by UP.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 n.3 (2007). “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ․ claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555). In order to survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds for his entitlement to relief necessitates that the complaint contain “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.

Under Twombly, a court considering a motion to dismiss may begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the presumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Although legal conclusions “can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” See id. (describing a “two-pronged approach” to evaluating such motions: First, a court must accept factual allegations and disregard legal conclusions; and then parse the factual allegations for facial plausibility). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

DISCUSSION

“The FMLA entitles eligible employees to twelve weeks of unpaid leave during a twelve month period for serious medical conditions.” Evans v. Coop. Response Ctr., Inc., 996 F.3d 539, 548 (8th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff has to show that he was an eligible employee to prevail on FMLA claim. Wages v. Stuart Mgmt. Corp., 798 F.3d 675, 679 (8th Cir. 2015).

“A claim under the FMLA cannot succeed unless the plaintiff can show that he gave his employer adequate and timely notice of his need for leave.” Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984, 991 (8th Cir. 2005). FMLA regulations regarding employee notice requirements state:

When an employee seeks leave due to a qualifying reason, for which the employer has previously provided the employee FMLA–protected leave, the employee must specifically reference either the qualifying reason for leave or the need for FMLA leave. Calling in “sick” without providing more information will not be considered sufficient notice to trigger an employer's obligations under the Act.

29 C.F.R. § 825.303(b). The FMLA regulations state that, “[w]hen the approximate timing of the need for leave is not foreseeable, an employee must provide notice to the employer as soon as practicable under the facts and circumstances of the particular case.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.303(a).

In the alternative, UP asks the Court to require Plaintiff to draft a more definite statement in his complaint. UP argues that Plaintiff's allegations are vague and UP is unable to adequately respond to them. Specifically, UP asks this Court to order the plaintiff to:

1. State whether Plaintiff is attempting to assert an interference or entitlement FMLA claim under 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1), and if so, identify the factual allegations in support of that claim, including, but not limited to, the facts to support (1) he is an “eligible employee” under the FMLA, and (2) that he provided Union Pacific adequate and timely notice.

2. State whether Plaintiff is attempting to assert a discrimination or retaliation claim under 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2), and if so, identify the factual allegations in support of that claim, including, but not limited to, the facts to support (1) he is an “eligible employee” under the FMLA, and (2) that he provided Union Pacific adequate and timely notice.

Filing No. 12, at 9.

Plaintiff contends that he was employed by UP and that he applied for intermittent FMLA leave, which was approved by UP. This, argues Plaintiff, shows that he met the eligibility criteria. Further, Plaintiff contends that eligibility is generally a matter to be developed in discovery and not through a motion to dismiss. The Nebraska District Court held that a plaintiff need not prove his claim at the pleading stage but must allege sufficient facts to make the claim plausible. Sivertson v. HeartFlow, Inc., No. 8:21CV112, 2021 WL 3079713, at *1 (D. Neb. July 21, 2021).

Next, Plaintiff argues that UP knew that his July 15 and 16, 2023 absences were due to his PTSD which is an FMLA-qualifying condition. His request for qualifying leave was made on June 27, 2023, and approved by UP on July 20, 2023. This, argues Plaintiff, shows that he provided notice of this leave to UP. Plaintiff was terminated many months later, and thus, contends Plaintiff, UP clearly knew of and approved his PTSD FMLA leave.

Next, Plaintiff asserts that he has adequately pled his FMLA claims. He states that his complaint clearly alleges that UP violated his FMLA rights by terminating him when he had a qualifying condition; and the complaint also alleges that UP engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against employees who use FMLA leave, further supporting Parker's claim of retaliation.

The Court has carefully reviewed the complaint and briefs as they relate to this motion and finds as follows.

1. The plaintiff alleges sufficient facts, at the motion to dismiss stage, to show that UP considered Plaintiff an eligible employee. He alleged he suffered from PTSD and was entitled to FMLA. With regard to the argument by UP that Plaintiff must allege that UP had adequate and timely notice, it is clear from the allegations in the complaint that UP either “knew” by the June 27, 2023, filing that plaintiff requested FMLA for PTSD, or, thereafter had knowledge. It does not appear that any discipline occurred at that time or for the next 8 months.

2. With regard to the argument that UP cannot discern between whether this is a claim for discrimination or for retaliation under the FMLA, the Court is of the opinion that § 2615(a)(2) of the FMLA makes it unlawful for “any employer to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any individual for opposing any practice made unlawful by [the Act].” Accordingly, at this juncture in the case, either claim is valid under the FMLA.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendant's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for a more definite statement, Filing No. 11, is denied. These claims can be further developed through the discovery stage.

Dated this 26th day of September, 2024.

Joseph F. Bataillon Senior United States District Judge