Afonso et al v. Lingsch et al

Filing 47

Judge Michael A. Ponsor: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING: For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum and order, the court hereby orders counsel to submit to this court, no later than May 2, 2014, a memorandu m of no more than ten pages addressing the question in the attached memorandum. Once the court receives these supplemental submissions, it will either set the matter for argument or issue a memorandum and order addressing all four counts. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MATTHEW AFONSO & DEBORAH
DANOFF-HOPPE,
Plaintiffs

v.
ALYSON LINGSCH, ALAN J.
INGRAM, JENNI MANFREDI,
OTILIO ALVARADO, & CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS
SCHOOL DEPARTMENT,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
) C.A. NO. 13-cv-30004-MAP
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
April 3, 2014
PONSOR, U.S.D.J.

Plaintiffs have brought this litigation against
Defendants asserting three constitutional claims and one
claim for retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act
(“FMLA”).

On January 21, 2014, Defendants moved for summary

judgment, arguing, inter alia, that Plaintiffs were not
“eligible employees” under the FMLA and, therefore, could
not move forward on that count.

(Dkt. No. 27.)

Plaintiffs

failed to respond to that argument, though they did

highlight aspects of the record tending to indicate that
they were, in fact, granted FMLA leave.

(Dkt. No. 36.)

The court is now seeking additional assistance from
counsel on one question respecting the FMLA claim: Can an
individual, who is not an “eligible employee” entitled to
leave under the FMLA, nonetheless assert a retaliation claim
where the employer has already granted him or her FMLA
leave?

In other words, did Plaintiffs engage in protected

activity because they reasonably believed they were
protected under the statute?

The First Circuit in McArdle

v. Town of Dracut/Dracut Public Schools, 732 F.3d 29 (1st
Cir. 2013), arguably offers support for either answer.

Id.

at 36. (“We are not convinced that an employee who is
ineligible for FMLA leave can never being a retaliation
claim.”)
Based on the foregoing, the court hereby orders counsel
to submit to this court, no later than May 2, 2014, a
memorandum of no more than ten pages addressing the above
question.

Once the court receives these supplemental

submissions, it will either set the matter for argument or
issue a memorandum and order addressing all four counts.

-2-

It is So Ordered.
/s/ Michael A. Ponsor
MICHAEL A. PONSOR
U. S. District Judge

-3-