West v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: CSXT's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 6 ) is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Signed by District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 1/9/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Adam West filed this lawsuit in state court against his former employer, CSX
Transportation, Inc. (“CSXT”), alleging violations of the Family Medical and Leave Act
(“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., arising from the termination of his employment. (Doc. No.
1-1.) CSXT removed the case to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), because the Court
has federal question jurisdiction over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. No. 1.) Before the
Court is CSXT’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 6.) For the following reasons, CSXT’s motion is
West is a former conductor for CSXT. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 4.) On February 11, 2014, CSXT
approved West for intermittent leave under the FMLA for his mental health condition. (Id. at 4,
On or about September 27, 2014, West called his dispatch office and requested that it place
him on FMLA leave for his next work day, September 29, 2014, for a scheduled doctor’s
appointment. (Id.) However, later on September 27, West had an episode related to his mental
health condition that led to his arrest. (Id.) West was unable to make bond from that arrest, and
missed his doctor’s appointment. (Id.)
On September 30, 2016, Wayne Sisco of the United Transportation Union (the “Union”)
submitted a request that CSXT give West a thirty day leave of absence starting on September 29.
(Id. at 4-5.) On October 8, 2014, CSXT opened a disciplinary case concerning West’s misuse of
FMLA leave. (Id. at 5.) CSXT’s charge letter informed West that it is investigating whether he
misused FMLA leave on September 27, 28, 29, 30, and October 1, 2, and 3. (Id. at 26.) On October
14, CSXT denied the Union’s request for West’s leave of absence because West had an open
disciplinary case. (Id. at 5.) The Union representatives protested CSXT’s refusal to grant the leave
of absence because, they claimed, had CSXT granted the leave of absence in a timely fashion, the
disciplinary charges would have been avoided. (Id.) CSXT held a hearing on the disciplinary
charges. (Id.) Following the hearing, CSXT terminated West’s employment. (Id.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
For purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must take all the factual
allegations in the complaint as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). To survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Id. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. When there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give
rise to an entitlement to relief. Id. at 679. A legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation need
not be accepted as true on a motion to dismiss, nor are recitations of the elements of a cause of
action sufficient. Fritz v. Charter Township of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718, 722 (6th Cir. 2010).
West brings two independent claims under the FMLA: (1) FMLA interference and (2) a
declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties under the FMLA. 1 (Doc. No. 1-1 at 6-7.)
CSXT argues that the FMLA does not provide a cause of action for his second claim. (Doc. No. 7
at 4.) West does not respond to this argument in his response. (Doc. No. 7.) Under the Court’s
Local Rules, when a party fails to respond to an argument, it concedes that argument. LR 7.01(b).
The Court agrees that 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a) does not provide for a declaratory judgment, and grants
the motion to dismiss West’s second claim.
CSXT argues that West received all FMLA benefits to which he was entitled. (Doc. No. 7
at 3.) It further asserts that West did not take his FMLA leave on September 29 for its intended
purpose, and therefore was not entitled to reinstatement. (Doc. No. 7 at 4.) West argues that he
was incarcerated for the medical condition that allowed him to received FMLA leave, and therefore
his incarceration should be covered under the FMLA. (Doc. No. 14 at 3.)
On December 1, 2016, the Court ordered further briefing on the issue of whether West was
entitled to use FMLA leave while incarcerated. (Doc. No. 18.) In his supplemental brief, West reasserts that his absence “was the result of his chronic serious health condition,” and therefore
“incarceration does not negate his entitlement to FMLA leave.” 2 (Doc. No. 19 at 3.) CSXT asserts
A claim for restoration of employment is categorized as an FMLA interference claim because it alleges
that the employer is interfering with an employee’s FMLA right to reinstatement, under 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1).
Edgar v. JAC Products, Inc., 443 F.3d 501, 507 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Arban v. West Pub. Corp., 345 F.3d 390,
401 (6th Cir. 2003)).
Although the Court ordered further briefing and gave the parties a starting point as to cases that may be
relevant, West only summarized the cases the Court found, which was not helpful. The three nonbinding cases,
Jeremy v. Northwest Ohio Developmental Ctr., 210 F.3d 372 (6th Cir. 2000) (unpublished), Flores v. Murphy Co.,
No. 1:12-CV-2156-CL, 2014 WL 584553 (D. Ore. Feb. 12, 2014), and Gurley v. AmeriWood Industs., Inc., 232 F.
that West did not miss work because of his serious health condition, but instead that he could not
make bond, which is fatal to West’s claim. (Doc. No. 20 at 2.)
To establish a prima facie case of FMLA interference, an employee must show that “(1) he
was an eligible employee; (2) the defendant was a covered employer under the FMLA; (3) he was
entitled to take leave under the FMLA; (4) he notified his employer of his intent to take leave; and
(5) the employer denied him benefits or rights to which he was entitled under the
FMLA.” Demyanovich v. Cadon Plating & Coatings, L.L.C., 747 F.3d 419, 427 (6th Cir. 2014)
(citing Edgar v. JAC Products, Inc., 443 F.3d 501, 507 (6th Cir. 2006)).
Here, West does not allege that CSXT denied him any benefits or rights to which he was
entitled under the FMLA. The only benefit or right to which West claims entitlement is
reinstatement. However, the right to reinstatement only applies to an “eligible employee who takes
[FMLA leave] for the intended purpose of the leave.” 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1) (2008). Here, West
does not allege that he used his FMLA leave on September 29, 2014, for the intended purpose of
attending his doctor’s appointment, so he has no right to reinstatement. Further, West does not
allege that he would have been reinstated had he not taken leave. 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(3)(B).
Rather, he still would have been absent without leave for multiple days while incarcerated, which
is a legitimate reason for CSXT to fire him. See Bryson v. Regis Corp., 498 F.3d 561, 572 (6th
Cir. 2007) (finding that an employer may fire an employee who is unable to return to work after
the twelve-week period of statutory leave). As such, West does not establish a prima facie case for
Supp. 2d 969 (E.D. Mo. 2002), presented persuasive authority that if West was having a mental health incident
while incarcerated, he could have asked for FMLA as soon as practicable. West’s case is different, as he alleges he
had an episode relating to his serious mental health condition on September 27, 2014, he never alleged that he was
experiencing an episode relating to his condition on September 29, 2014—the day he actually missed work. The
FMLA protects an employee when he or she is unable to give notice in accordance with the employer’s rules due to
“unusual circumstances.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(d). It does not protect an employee, like West, who is unable to use
the leave in the intended manner because of an unusual circumstance, such as incarceration.
Should the Complaint be liberally-read to include an FMLA claim for interfering with
West’s ability to take leave based on his September 27, 2014 incident, West does not state a claim
to which he is entitled relief. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 6.) The Complaint alleges that West had an episode
that could be covered under the FMLA on September 27, 2014. (Id.) His supporting documentation
states that should West have an episode, he is entitled to four-to-seven days of FMLA leave. (Id.
at 17.) Therefore, West could have been covered for FMLA leave on September 29, 2014, based
on his September 27 episode. However, West does not allege that he informed his employer that
he had an episode relating to his mental health condition at all prior to this lawsuit. (See Doc. No.
1-1.) Rather, Sisco’s email to CSXT on behalf of West stated that he had an “urgent family matter
involving the care of his daughter,” and he needed a thirty day leave of absence starting on
September 29. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 23.) This does not inform CSXT that he needed FMLA leave due
to his covered medical condition, and therefore West does not make any allegation that he “notified
his employer of his intent to take leave.” Demyanovich, 747 F.3d at 427. Therefore, West does not
state a claim that is plausible on its face.
For the foregoing reasons, CSXT’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED. The
Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?