Wiseman v. United Distributive Works, Council 30, UDW, RWDSU et al

Filing 64

ORDER Adopting 62 Report and Recommendation denying 53 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Douglas Wiseman and granting 52 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Awreys Bakeries, LLC Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (CMul)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DOUGLAS WISEMAN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-11879
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN

v.
AWREY BAKERIES,
Defendant.
________________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WHALEN’S AUGUST 31, 2011 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I.

Introduction
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s Report and

Recommendation (“R and R”) dated August 31, 2011, recommending that the Court grant
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff filed an objection to the R and R, and Defendant did not file a response to Plaintiff’s
objection.
This Court has had an opportunity to fully review this matter and the parties’ filings, and
believes that the Magistrate Judge has reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons.
The Court hereby adopts pages 1-5 of the R and R, comprising the procedural and factual history
of this matter, as though restated herein.

1

II.

Analysis
The only remaining claim before this Court is for violation of the Family and Medical

Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. (“FMLA”) by Defendant Awrey Bakeries
(“Defendant” or “Awrey”).

The R and R found that Plaintiff failed to comply with both the

substantive and the procedural requirements for obtaining FMLA leave, and therefore Defendant
acted legally in denying FMLA leave to Plaintiff and treating Plaintiff’s absences as unexcused
absences, justifying Plaintiff’s termination.
Plaintiff’s objection constitutes a numbered list of twelve comments on his case, without
any citation to the record. Overly broad objections do not satisfy the objections requirement of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) or E.D.Mich. L.R. 72.1(D)(1). Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th
Cir.1995). Vague objections which do not relate to specific findings by the Magistrate Judge do
not merit review, and a court is not required to address such vague objections. Id. Therefore, the
Court will address only those objections that regard specific findings by Magistrate Judge
Whalen.
Plaintiff objects to the finding in the R and R that he was obligated to produce timely
proof of his condition warranting FMLA leave. Sentence six of Plaintiff’s objection states that
“Magistrate Whalen’s Report and Recommendation shifts the burden pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
825.301(a) to Plaintiff, imposing a duty on the employee to provide documentation not yet
requested by the employer, based on Plaintiff’s perceived degree of knowledge of the FMLA
process.” Essentially, Plaintiff seems to argue that 1) the R and R placed too high of a burden on
Plaintiff to produce timely proof of his medical condition; and 2) the R and R improperly
concluded that Plaintiff had extensive knowledge of the FMLA process.

2

The FMLA clearly imposes duties on both the employer and the employee. Section
825.301, to which Plaintiff cites in his objection, includes both “employer responsibilities,” and
“employee responsibilities,” directing:
(a) Employer responsibilities. The employer's decision to designate leave as
FMLA-qualifying must be based only on information received from the employee
or the employee's spokesperson . . . In any circumstance where the employer does
not have sufficient information about the reason for an employee's use of leave,
the employer should inquire further of the employee or the spokesperson to
ascertain whether leave is potentially FMLA-qualifying. Once the employer has
acquired knowledge that the leave is being taken for a FMLA-qualifying reason,
the employer must notify the employee as provided in § 825.300(d).
(b) Employee responsibilities. An employee giving notice of the need for FMLA
leave does not need to expressly assert rights under the Act or even mention the
FMLA to meet his or her obligation to provide notice, though the employee
would need to state a qualifying reason for the needed leave and otherwise satisfy
the notice requirements set forth in § 825.302 or § 825.303 depending on whether
the need for leave is foreseeable or unforeseeable. An employee giving notice of
the need for FMLA leave must explain the reasons for the needed leave so as to
allow the employer to determine whether the leave qualifies under the Act. If the
employee fails to explain the reasons, leave may be denied. In many cases, in
explaining the reasons for a request to use leave, especially when the need for the
leave was unexpected or unforeseen, an employee will provide sufficient
information for the employer to designate the leave as FMLA leave . . .
29 C.F.R. § 825.301
The employee clearly has a statutory obligation to provide timely and sufficient
explanation to the employer regarding the reason its leave is necessary. Accordingly, the finding
in the R and R that Plaintiff was obligated to provide timely proof of the reason for his leave to
Defendant is not improper.
Further, while the R and R makes mention of Plaintiff’s knowledge regarding FMLA
procedures, such knowledge does not impact the ultimate recommendation. Ultimately, Plaintiff
was granted more time than that required by the applicable regulations to submit documentation

3

of his need for FMLA leave, and still failed to do so. In addition, when Plaintiff did submit a
letter from his doctor, the letter did not offer any substantive explanation of why Plaintiff could
not return to work. Regardless of whether Plaintiff was expected to have knowledge of FMLA
procedures, Plaintiff failed to provide timely proof of his condition, and failed to comply with
both the substantive and procedural requirements for obtaining FMLA leave. The suggestion in
the R and R that Plaintiff should have better understood his obligations under the FMLA does
not impact these conclusions.
III.

Order
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s Report and

Recommendation dated August 31, 2011, is hereby accepted and adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED.

Dated: September 19, 2011
Detroit, Michigan

S/Bernard A. Friedman___
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4