Branham v. Delta Airlines

Citation: 678 F. App'x 702Docket: No. 16-4092

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; February 2, 2017; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge, ruled in favor of Delta Airlines and former supervisor Joni Gagnon in a case brought by Georjane Branham, who contested her termination on multiple claims, including one under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and Branham appealed, focusing on her FMLA claim. 

Branham, a flight attendant since 1991, was previously terminated for being above the alcohol limit but reinstated under a 'Final Warning,' which allowed termination for any policy infractions. In June 2012, while on call, she accepted a flight assignment but later requested a 'managed time out' to care for her ill mother, citing fatigue. Delta's policy required flight attendants to inform their supervisor after calling in sick, and failure to cover an assignment could lead to disciplinary action. Following her absence, Branham was suspended and subsequently terminated due to her prior infractions and the 'failure to cover' incident. Her termination was upheld through Delta's appeals process.

The district court ruled that Branham was terminated for violating Delta’s absence-notification policy, not for exercising FMLA rights, and she failed to inform Delta sufficiently to indicate her potential eligibility for FMLA benefits. The court noted that Branham had used FMLA leave before and was not prejudiced by Delta’s failure to notify her about her rights at that time. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Delta Airlines regarding the FMLA claim. Branham argues on appeal that her June 8th absence should have qualified for FMLA leave and that Delta failed to notify her of her potential rights.

Reviewing the grant of summary judgment occurs de novo, applying the same standard as the district court, which states that summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Evidence must be viewed in favor of the nonmoving party. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), an employer cannot interfere with an employee's right to take FMLA leave. To succeed in an FMLA interference claim, the employee must demonstrate entitlement to FMLA leave, that an adverse action by the employer interfered with that right, and that the employer's action was related to the exercise of FMLA rights. An employer may defend against such a claim by proving the employee would have been terminated regardless of the FMLA request.

Termination of an employee for not complying with absence-notification policies does not violate the FMLA, even if the absences are protected. Ms. Branham did not provide evidence that her termination was for reasons other than noncompliance with Delta's policy. Her request for FMLA leave after suspension did not exempt her from these policies. Employees must follow customary notification procedures for leave unless unusual circumstances exist. Ms. Branham was on a “Final Warning” and had a recent history of short-notice absences, undermining her claims. Delta demonstrated that her dismissal was unrelated to any FMLA leave entitlement.

Regarding notification, Ms. Branham argued that Delta failed to inform her of her right to apply for FMLA leave for her June 8th absence. She cited a case which states that employers must notify employees of potential FMLA eligibility if they are aware that the employee might qualify. However, simply calling in sick without additional context does not fulfill the notice requirement that would compel employer obligations under the FMLA.

Ms. Branham claims that her notification to Delta regarding her mother's illness triggered the defendants' obligations under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). However, even if this notification implied her potential entitlement to FMLA leave, Delta fulfilled its notification responsibilities since Ms. Branham had previously requested and received FMLA leave multiple times for herself and family members. Under 29 C.F.R. 825.303(b), first-time leave requests for FMLA-qualifying reasons do not require explicit mention of the FMLA. Additionally, Ms. Branham was terminated for reasons unrelated to FMLA leave, meaning she could not demonstrate that she suffered prejudice due to any alleged failure by Delta to inform her about her FMLA rights, as established in Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc. The district court's judgment is affirmed, and the issue of potential personal liability of Ms. Branham's supervisor is not addressed since no FMLA violation was found. The case is submitted without oral argument, and the decision holds no binding precedent except under specific legal doctrines but may be cited for its persuasive value. Lastly, a managed time out is defined as authorized personal leave for unforeseen circumstances arising within twenty-four hours of a scheduled trip.