Jones v. State of Nevada ex rel Board of Regents for the Nevada System of Higher Education
Filing
29
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants' motion to amend the scheduling order 25 is GRANTD.Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 12 is DENIED and defendant's motion for summary judgment 18 is GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of theDefendants and against the Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 9/6/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
***
4
5
DR. FRANCIS JONES,
Plaintiff,
6
7
8
9
10
v.
THE STATE OF NEVADA EX REL. BOARD
OF REGENTS FOR THE NEVADA SYSTEM
OF HIGHER EDUCATION ON BEHALF OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS
VEGAS, SCHOOL OF DENTAL MEDICINE,
et al.,
11
ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, (2) GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND (3)
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO EXTEND THE DISPOSITIVE
MOTION DEADLINE
Defendants.
(ECF Nos. 12, 18, 25)
12
13
Case No. 2:14-cv-01930–APG–NJK
Dr. Francis Jones served as Director of Continuing Education for the University of
14
Nevada, Las Vegas, School of Dental Medicine from 2011 through 2014. During this time, he
15
received unfavorable performance evaluations and took leave under the Family and Medical
16
Leave Act, (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. Three months after taking FMLA leave, the
17
University terminated his directorship and returned him to his previous position as an assistant
18
professor. Five months later, Jones filed this lawsuit alleging that the University interfered with
19
his FMLA rights.
20
Jones seeks summary judgment because it is undisputed that he took FMLA leave and lost
21
his directorship three months later. The University also moves for summary judgment, arguing
22
that its decision to terminate Jones’s directorship is causally unrelated to Jones’s decision to take
23
FMLA leave.1
24
25
I grant the University’s motion to amend the scheduling order because denial of the
motion would result in an unnecessary trial and waste judicial resources. I deny Jones’s motion
26
27
28
1
Because the University moved for summary judgment after the dispositive motion
deadline, it seeks to amend that deadline so that I may consider its motion. ECF No. 25.
1
for summary judgment because he lacks evidence to show a causal connection between his use of
2
FMLA leave and the adverse employment action. I also grant the University’s motion for
3
summary judgment because it is undisputed that Jones received unfavorable performance reviews
4
and his directorship was terminable at the University’s discretion “without cause.”
5
I.
BACKGROUND
6
Jones began teaching at the University on July 1, 2005, first as a part-time instructor and
7
later as a full-time, non-tenure track assistant professor. ECF No. 18-1 at ¶¶ 5, 6. In June 2011,
8
the University offered him a one-year administrative appointment as the Director of Continuing
9
Education, with an additional $7,000.00 in compensation. Id. at ¶ 7. The Director of Continuing
10
Education serves at the University’s discretion and can be terminated at any time “without cause.”
11
Id. at Ex. A-4.
12
In 2012, Jones received an unfavorable performance review, which stated that he had
13
trouble communicating with his colleagues, was reactive rather than proactive, and struggled with
14
organizational and follow-up skills. ECF No. 18-2 at ¶ 5. One year later, Jones received an
15
“unsatisfactory” performance review, which stated this his communication skills had deteriorated
16
and he had failed to follow his superior’s directions. Id. at ¶ 6.
17
One month later, Jones placed a document in a visiting faculty member’s office that
18
contained that faculty member’s salary, title, and multiple pictures of Bozo the Clown. ECF No.
19
18-1 at ¶ 10. When confronted about the document, Jones admitted that he created it and put it in
20
the professor’s office as a “gag.” Id. As a result, the University issued Jones a Letter of
21
Instruction explaining that his conduct was unprofessional. Id. at ¶ 11.
22
In January 2014, Jones took intermittent FMLA leave to care for a family member. ECF
23
No. 12-1. Three months later, the University terminated his directorship, effective May 1, 2014.
24
ECF No. 12-4. The letter noted “numerous” concerns with his performance, as documented by
25
his annual reviews. Id. The letter also said that Jones would return to a full-time teaching position
26
as an assistant professor in residence. Id. Five months later, Jones filed suit against the
27
University, alleging that the University unlawfully interfered with his FLMA leave.
28
Page 2 of 6
1
II.
MOTION TO AMEND
2
Jones argues that the University’s motion for summary judgment should be denied
3
because it is untimely. In response, the University moves to amend the discovery plan and
4
scheduling order so that I may consider the untimely motion.
Generally, a discovery plan and scheduling order cannot be modify without good cause
5
6
and a showing that the party seeking amendment was diligent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16; Johnson v.
7
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, the scheduling order set
8
August 14, 2015 as the dispositive motion deadline. ECF No. 10 at 2. Both parties missed this
9
deadline and filed documents on August 15, 17, 18, and 21. See ECF Nos. 12, 13, 14, 18. Under
10
these circumstances, good cause exists to consider the untimely filed motions because denial of
11
the motions would result in an unnecessary trial and, therefore, waste judicial resources. See
12
Dayton Valley Inv’rs, LLC v. Union Pac. R. Co., 664 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1179 (D. Nev. 2009)
13
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). I therefore grant the University’s motion to amend and consider both
14
parties’ motions.
15
III.
16
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, discovery responses, and affidavits
17
demonstrate “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
18
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (c). A fact is material if it “might affect the
19
outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
20
(1986). An issue is genuine if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict
21
for the nonmoving party.” Id.
22
The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the
23
basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a
24
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The burden
25
then shifts to the non-moving party to go beyond the pleadings and set forth specific facts
26
demonstrating there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato
27
Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 531 (9th Cir. 2000). I view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the
28
Page 3 of 6
1
light most favorable to the non-moving party. James River Ins. Co. v. Hebert Schenk, P.C., 523
2
F.3d 915, 920 (9th Cir. 2008).
3
A.
Authentication & Supplementation
4
Jones argues that the University’s exhibits should be stricken because the University
5
failed to authenticate its exhibits as required by Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2002).
6
Jones is mistaken. The University’s motion for summary judgment contains two affidavits that
7
authenticate the attached exhibits, as required by Orr. See ECF No. 18 at Ex. A (West Aff.), Ex.
8
B (Skelton Aff).
9
Jones next argues that the University’s exhibits should be excluded because they were
10
produced after the close of discovery. Jones is, again, mistaken. The University disclosed the
11
documents in September 2014. See ECF No. 24 at 5–6. Even if the disclosures were late, Jones
12
failed to argue that the University’s alleged failure to comply with the discovery rules was
13
prejudicial, disrupted trial, or the result of bad faith. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); Lanard Toys
14
Ltd. v. Novelty, Inc., 375 F. App’x 705, 713 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing David v. Caterpillar, Inc., 324
15
F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2003)). I will therefore consider the University’s exhibits when
16
examining the parties’ motions for summary judgment.
17
B.
Merits
18
The FMLA provides job security to employees who must be absent from work up to 12
19
weeks because of serious health conditions. 29 U.S.C. § 2612. It is a violation of the FMLA for
20
an employer to “interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise any
21
right provided under [this act].” 29 U.S.C. § 2615. Courts have recognized two separate causes of
22
action on FMLA claims: (1) retaliation or discrimination and (2) interference. See Sanders v. City
23
of Newport, 657 F.3d 772, 777 (9th. Cir. 2011).
24
However, “complaints alleging adverse employment actions taken against employees
25
because they have used FMLA leave” are construed as “claims of interference” rather than
26
“claims of retaliation or discrimination.” Bachelder v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112, 1124
27
(9th Cir. 2001). To state a claim for FMLA interference, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he
28
Page 4 of 6
1
took FMLA leave, (2) the defendant subjected him to an adverse employment action, and (3) the
2
adverse action was causally linked to the FMLA leave. Id. at 1124–25. Stated differently, a
3
plaintiff “need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [his] taking of FMLA-
4
protected leave constituted a negative factor in the decision to terminate [him].” Id. at 1124.
5
The parties agree that Jones satisfied the first element because he took FMLA leave
6
beginning on January 13, 2014. Jones argues that he suffered an adverse employment action
7
because he received an unfavorable performance evaluation only after he took FMLA leave, at
8
which point he was demoted. See ECF Nos. 12 at 5:10–11; 23 at 7:8–10. The University denies
9
that Jones suffered an adverse employment action because his position as the director could be
10
terminated “without cause.” The University also denies that Jones’s decision to take FMLA leave
11
constituted a negative factor in the decision to terminate his directorship.
12
Even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Jones, the facts support the
13
University’s contention that Jones’s FMLA leave did not constitute a negative factor in the
14
decision to terminate him. Jones presents no direct evidence that the University removed him
15
from his position as the director because he took FMLA leave. The only evidence Jones offers is
16
the proximity in time between his leave and his demotion. Although temporal proximity may
17
support the causation element to an FMLA interference claim, “[g]enerally, more than a temporal
18
proximity between protected activity and termination is required to present a genuine issue of fact
19
for trial.” Malloy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 756 F.3d 1088, 1091 (8th Cir. 2014) (Colloton, J.).
20
Additionally, if an employee suffers an adverse employment action after taking FMLA
21
leave, the employer must prove that the employee would have been dismissed regardless of the
22
employee’s request for, or taking of, FMLA leave. Sanders v. City of Newport, 657 F.3d 772, 780
23
(9th Cir. 2011) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.214). The University satisfies this burden by showing that
24
Jones received unfavorable performance evaluations, acted unprofessionally on several occasions,
25
and could be removed without cause. See, e.g., ECF No. at Ex. A-2, A-7, B-1. Jones asserts
26
various arguments to show that his unfavorable performance evaluations were pre-textual, that his
27
directorship should not have been terminated because he was beating the University’s
28
Page 5 of 6
1
expectations, and that he was actually terminated because he took FMLA leave. See, e.g., ECF
2
No. 27 (discussing some of Jones’s successes and alleging that the University was “in reality”
3
attempting to fulfill the director’s duties without Jones’s involvement). However, Jones’s
4
subjective belief is insufficient to survive summary judgment. And any evidence showing that he
5
may have beaten some of the University’s expectations is immaterial because he served as the
6
director at the University’s discretion and there is no evidence of pretext.
Because the evidence shows that Jones’s decision to take FMLA leave did not constitute a
7
8
negative factor in the University’s decision to terminate his directorship, Jones’s FMLA claim
9
fails as a matter of law. As a result, I do not need to address the parties’ arguments regarding
10
whether the termination of his directorship constituted an adverse employment action.
11
III.
12
13
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, School of
Dental Medicine’s motion to amend the scheduling order (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED.
14
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff Dr. Francis Jones’s motion for summary
15
judgment (ECF No. 12) is DENIED and defendant University of Nevada, Las Vegas, School of
16
Dental Medicine’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED.
17
18
19
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, School of Dental Medicine’s and against Dr. Francis Jones.
DATED this 6th day of September, 2016.
20
21
22
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 6 of 6
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?