Mell v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society, The

Background

Josianne Mell had worked for the Minnesota State Agricultural Society, doing business as the Minnesota State Fair, in several roles since 1983 and was a finance supervisor during the relevant period. After being diagnosed with cancer in December 2019, she underwent surgery, received chemotherapy, and took medical leave. The Fair approved leave through April 8, 2020, and Mell later remained away from work until June 2020.

Mell alleged that when she returned to work without restrictions, the Fair reassigned her from her finance position to manual-labor “special projects” as a “Floating Laborer,” reduced her hours to part time, and later terminated her. She asserted five claims: Minnesota Human Rights Act claims for disability discrimination, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and reprisal; an FMLA claim seeking restoration to her former position; and an FMLA discrimination claim.

Legal Standard

The Fair moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Mell’s favor. The allegations still had to make each claim plausible rather than merely possible.

FMLA Entitlement Claim

The court denied the motion to dismiss Mell’s claim that the Fair violated the FMLA by failing to restore her to her former desk position. Generally, an employee returning from FMLA leave is entitled to return to the same or an equivalent position. The FMLA does not guarantee a position the employee would not have held without taking leave, including when the position was eliminated or the employee could not perform an essential job function.

The Fair argued that Mell’s position had been eliminated because of the COVID-19 pandemic and cancellation of the 2020 Fair. The court found that the complaint and attached materials did not establish that the position had actually been eliminated or that Mell would have lost it regardless of her leave.

The Fair also argued that Mell was unable to perform an essential function of her position when her FMLA leave ended. The court held that this inability is an affirmative defense that the employer must plead and prove. The record showed that Mell’s doctor released her to unrestricted work no earlier than April 13, five days after her FMLA leave expired, but it did not establish whether she could have performed the essential functions of her former job with restrictions on April 8. Because factual gaps remained, the court found it premature to reject the entitlement claim.

FMLA Discrimination Claim

The court granted the motion as to Mell’s claim that the Fair demoted and terminated her because she exercised FMLA rights. The claim was dismissed without prejudice. Mell plausibly alleged protected activity and adverse employment actions, including reassignment, reduced hours, and termination, but she did not plausibly allege a causal connection between her FMLA leave and those actions.

The Fair knew of Mell’s planned leave on December 30, 2019, but the first alleged adverse action occurred nearly six months later. The court found that this timing, without additional supporting allegations, was insufficient. The Fair had also approved an extension of Mell’s leave and directed her to remain away from work because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The attached job description indicated that all employees were expected to perform similar manual-labor duties after the 2020 Fair was canceled, making it less plausible that Mell’s reassignment was connected to her FMLA leave.

Minnesota Human Rights Act Claims

The court granted the motion as to all three Minnesota Human Rights Act claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

For disability discrimination, the court concluded that Mell had plausibly alleged a qualifying disability based on a record of an impairment. Her cancer treatment, surgery, chemotherapy, and extended recovery plausibly showed that cancer had materially limited a major life activity at some point. But she did not plausibly allege that the Fair took adverse actions because of her cancer. By the time she returned, she had been released to work without restrictions, and the complaint did not identify a specific link between her cancer and the employment actions.

For failure to accommodate, Mell alleged that restoring her to her former finance position was a reasonable accommodation. The court rejected the Fair’s argument that restoration could never be a reasonable accommodation merely because the FMLA did not require it. But the claim still failed because Mell did not allege that ongoing effects of cancer required her to have a desk job or otherwise required the requested accommodation when she returned to work without restrictions.

For reprisal, Mell argued that requesting FMLA leave and seeking restoration to her former job were protected activities. The court found no plausible causal connection between those activities and the later adverse actions. Months passed between the alleged protected activities and the employment actions, and the complaint did not allege additional facts supporting retaliation. The court also noted that Mell had not plausibly tied her request for restoration to disability-related limitations.

Amendment and Disposition

Mell requested an opportunity to amend her complaint, but the court declined to grant leave to amend at that time. She had chosen to stand on the existing complaint and had not explained what changes would cure the identified problems. The court nevertheless dismissed the unsuccessful claims without prejudice because their primary defect was the lack of factual allegations, rather than an unavoidable legal bar.

Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that the Fair’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part: it was denied as to Count IV’s FMLA entitlement claim; granted as to Count IV’s FMLA discrimination claim, which was dismissed without prejudice; and granted as to Counts I, II, and III, which were dismissed without prejudice.