Ahmann v. Blattner Holding Company, LLC

Background

Kimberly Ahmann worked for Blattner Holding Company, LLC as an instructional designer beginning in August 2019. She received positive feedback, a raise, and bonuses before her employment ended. In early 2021, she began experiencing worsening health problems and told her supervisor, Sean Martin, about her health and need for time away from work. She did not initially make a specific request for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave.

Ahmann received an oral warning in April 2021 and a written warning in July 2021. During the period surrounding the written warning, she asked Blattner’s human resources department about FMLA leave. Blattner sent her FMLA paperwork, and an internal document suggested that she was granted intermittent FMLA leave as of July 28, 2021. The record also contained evidence that Ahmann gave FMLA paperwork to medical providers and that the paperwork may have been faxed to Blattner. Blattner maintained that it never received completed FMLA paperwork.

Ahmann was hospitalized and underwent surgery in December 2021. She returned to work in January 2022 and received some work-from-home accommodation. She later sought intermittent FMLA leave for continuing medical appointments and recovery. Ahmann said that Blattner human resources employee Todd Lorentz discouraged her from using intermittent leave and told her to work out scheduling issues with her manager instead. Lorentz acknowledged that Blattner’s policy first encouraged employees to resolve scheduling conflicts informally, and he said he understood Ahmann’s FMLA coverage to have ended when she returned to work.

Ahmann’s work relationship later deteriorated under supervisor Sandy Borstad. Blattner terminated her on June 23, 2022, stating that poor performance was the reason. Ahmann disputed that explanation, pointing to prior positive feedback, reassurances about her job, a bonus, and her view that the performance criticisms increased after she disclosed her health problems and sought FMLA leave.

Claims and legal standard

Ahmann brought two FMLA claims: interference with her FMLA rights and retaliation or discrimination for exercising or attempting to exercise those rights. Blattner moved for summary judgment on both claims.

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute exists about facts that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. At this stage, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. A genuine dispute exists when the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to decide for that party.

FMLA interference claim

For an FMLA interference claim, Ahmann had to show that she was eligible for leave, that Blattner knew she needed FMLA leave, and that Blattner denied or interfered with an FMLA benefit to which she was entitled. She also had to show prejudice, meaning a real impairment of her FMLA rights.

The court identified factual disputes about Ahmann’s eligibility. First, the parties disputed whether Ahmann’s completed medical documentation was returned to Blattner. Second, the parties disputed whether intermittent leave was medically necessary. Neurologist Gilbert Cadena declined to complete FMLA paperwork after Ahmann had been cleared from a neurological perspective, but he indicated that she should contact other providers if appointments with them required intermittent leave. Primary-care physician Julie Anderson completed paperwork stating that Ahmann needed intermittent leave for follow-up appointments and continued recovery. The court concluded that this evidence created a dispute about medical necessity.

The court also found a dispute about when Blattner knew that Ahmann might need FMLA leave. Ahmann described repeated communications with Martin about her health, absences, symptoms, medical appointments, and an upcoming magnetic-resonance-imaging scan. The court concluded that these facts could support a finding that Blattner had sufficient knowledge of a potentially qualifying need for leave, rather than merely knowing that Ahmann was sick.

There were additional disputes about interference. Ahmann alleged that Blattner failed to notify her of her FMLA rights, failed to record FMLA absences, and discouraged salaried employees from using intermittent leave. The court explained that FMLA interference can include discouraging an employee from using leave, not only directly denying it. The court found a factual dispute about whether Blattner’s direction to resolve appointment scheduling informally discouraged Ahmann from using FMLA leave.

Finally, the court found that a reasonable jury could determine that Ahmann was prejudiced because she was terminated while she may have been covered by intermittent FMLA leave. The court therefore declined to grant summary judgment to Blattner on the interference claim.

FMLA retaliation claim

For the retaliation claim, the court applied the burden-shifting framework commonly used for indirect discrimination claims. Ahmann had to show that she engaged in protected FMLA activity, suffered a materially adverse employment action, and had a causal connection between the protected activity and the action. Blattner conceded that Ahmann’s termination was an adverse action and that her attempt to use FMLA leave was protected activity. Blattner argued that there was no causal connection and that poor performance was the legitimate reason for the termination.

The court found that Ahmann presented enough evidence for a jury to consider whether a causal connection existed. The record showed no workplace problems before the spring of 2021, when Ahmann’s health problems and work difficulties began. She received an oral warning shortly after disclosing her health problems, a written warning after that, and additional performance criticism as her health worsened and she sought FMLA leave. The court also noted disputes about Borstad’s treatment of Ahmann and evidence that Ahmann received bonuses and positive feedback shortly before termination.

The court likewise found a factual dispute about pretext, meaning whether Blattner’s stated reason of poor performance was a cover for unlawful retaliation. Ahmann had received positive feedback before her health concerns, was reassured that she was in good standing after the warnings, and received a bonus after returning from surgery. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to leave disputed whether poor performance was the true reason for her termination.

Disposition

The court denied Blattner’s motion for summary judgment. The order did not resolve whether Blattner ultimately violated the FMLA; it determined that the identified factual disputes prevented judgment for Blattner at the summary-judgment stage.