Laabs v. Nor-Son, Inc.

Background

Brian Laabs sued Nor-Son, Inc., after Nor-Son terminated his employment. Laabs alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).

Laabs alleged that he had knee pain and expected to need knee-replacement surgeries. In September 2019, he discussed taking time off for a knee-surgeon appointment and asked when surgery would be best. In October, he asked Nor-Son for information about medical leave and disability benefits. Nor-Son’s benefit administrator allegedly told him that the FMLA would protect his job if he returned within twelve weeks.

Laabs was scheduled to work at a construction-site grand opening during his medical appointment. On October 25, 2019, Nor-Son allegedly directed him to work from that site the following week. On October 28, while Laabs was meeting with the knee surgeon, Nor-Son told him that his employment had ended effective October 25. Nor-Son later said that the work opportunities it had been pursuing for Laabs had been delayed until spring.

Laabs also alleged that Nor-Son laid him off even though other site supervisors had less seniority, had received other jobs around the same time, and had advertised an open residential site-supervisor position. He further alleged that Nor-Son did not follow its own layoff procedure and that his insurance coverage ended earlier than he had been told.

Motion and standard

Nor-Son moved for judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, summary judgment. Because the case was at an early stage, the court treated the motion as one for judgment on the pleadings and limited its review to the pleadings. A judgment-on-the-pleadings motion, like a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, asks whether the pleadings show that there is no material factual dispute and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court generally assumes the nonmoving party’s pleaded facts are true and draws reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.

FMLA claims

Laabs asserted both FMLA interference claims and FMLA retaliation or discrimination claims. Nor-Son argued that Laabs did not adequately plead that he was an eligible employee because he did not specifically allege that at least 50 employees worked at or near the Wayzata worksite.

The court rejected that argument at the pleading stage. It held that Laabs’s allegation that he was an eligible employee and that Nor-Son was his employer under the FMLA necessarily included the assertion that Nor-Son employed more than 50 employees as required by the statute. The court also explained that eligibility may be an affirmative defense and that an employer may be prevented from asserting it under some circumstances if the employer represented that the employee could take FMLA leave. Laabs did not have to plead facts anticipating that defense.

Nor-Son also argued that Laabs would have been laid off regardless of any FMLA request. The court found that argument premature because Nor-Son relied on evidence that Laabs had not had an opportunity to test, while Laabs had alleged facts pointing the other way. The court denied the motion as to the FMLA claim.

ADA and MHRA claims

Laabs brought discriminatory-discharge claims under the ADA and MHRA. The court explained that ADA discrimination generally requires a showing that the employee had a disability, was qualified for the job, and suffered an adverse employment action because of the disability. Because the ADA and MHRA claims have similar elements, the court analyzed them together.

Nor-Son argued that Laabs had not adequately pleaded that his disability caused his termination under the burden-shifting framework used in employment-discrimination cases. The court stated that this framework is an evidentiary standard, not a requirement that must be fully pleaded in the complaint. It also found that the close timing between Laabs’s questions about surgery and leave and his termination provided enough of a causal connection for the claims to survive the motion. The opinion states that the motion was denied as to the ADA and FMLA claims; the surrounding discussion also addresses Laabs’s MHRA claim with the ADA claim.

ERISA claim

Laabs alleged that Nor-Son interfered with his ERISA benefits by terminating him. The court explained that an ERISA interference claim requires proof that the employer had a specific intent to interfere with the employee’s benefits, meaning that the benefits had a determinative influence on the termination decision.

Viewing the allegations in Laabs’s favor, the court found that he had sought information about his ERISA benefits and was terminated shortly afterward. The court held that he had pleaded enough facts for the ERISA claim to survive a motion under Rule 12.

Disposition

The court denied Nor-Son’s motion in full. It did not grant summary judgment, resolve factual disputes, or decide whether Laabs would ultimately prevail on any claim.