Todd Johnson v. Dollar General, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Pasco M. Bowman and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED) [4042749] [12-3033]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3033 ___________________________ Todd Johnson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Dollar General; Dolgencorp, LLC; Michael Williams lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge ____________ Submitted: June 6, 2013 Filed: June 6, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Todd Johnson appeals district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in this action against his former employer claiming violations of the Family and Medical 1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. Appellate Case: 12-3033 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Entry ID: 4042749 Leave Act (FMLA) and state law. Following de novo review, we agree with the district court’s determination that Johnson did not create a genuine issue of material fact that he had a “serious heath condition” for purposes of a claim that defendants interfered with his FMLA rights. See 29 U.S.C. § 2611(11) (defining “serious health condition”); Ballato v. Comcast Corp., 676 F.3d 768, 772 (8th Cir. 2012) (initial burden of proof in FMLA interference case is on employee to show that he was entitled to benefit denied); Rankin v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 246 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001) (conditions like common cold or flu will not routinely satisfy requirements). We also agree that Johnson’s FMLA retaliation claim fails because, among other reasons, he did not establish he was attempting to invoke FMLA rights. See Wierman v. Casey’s General Stores, 638 F.3d 984, 999 (8th Cir. 2011) (FMLA retaliation claim is evaluated under burden-shifting framework; to establish prima facie case, employee must show that (1) he engaged in protected conduct, (2) he suffered materially adverse employment action, and (3) materially adverse action was causally linked to protected conduct). Because we further conclude that the district court properly analyzed and rejected Johnson’s claims that defendants retaliated against him for seeking workers’ compensation benefits and unlawfully failed to pay him a bonus, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 12-3033 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Entry ID: 4042749

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?