Todd Johnson v. Dollar General, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Pasco M. Bowman and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED) [4042749] [12-3033]

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[Unpublished]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