Halberg v. Location Services, LLC

Background

Michelle Halberg worked as an accounting clerk for Auto Approve, a vehicle-refinancing company. Location Services acquired Auto Approve, and Halberg became a Location Services employee while continuing to support Auto Approve’s business line. Halberg later took leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for cervical-fusion surgery.

Halberg returned to work full-time in January 2020 without restrictions or accommodations. Her job title, description, pay, benefits, location, hours, and supervisor remained unchanged. For about one week before a planned vacation, however, she was assigned work involving Repossessors, Inc., another business acquired by Location Services. Location Services terminated her employment shortly afterward. The record was unclear whether the termination occurred on January 23 or January 24, 2020.

Location Services said the termination was part of a company-wide reduction in force. The decision-maker testified that Halberg’s role was eliminated because she had experience only with Auto Approve and had less flexibility and knowledge of the other businesses than the remaining accounting employees.

FMLA entitlement claim

Halberg argued that the Repossessors, Inc. assignment violated her FMLA right to return to the same or an equivalent position after leave. An equivalent position must have substantially similar duties, conditions, responsibilities, privileges, and status; the law does not require every day-to-day duty to be identical.

The court held that Halberg’s post-leave position was not materially different from her pre-leave position as a matter of law. The accounting-clerk job description allowed various accounting responsibilities and tasks assigned by the accounting supervisor. The court found that the Repossessors, Inc. assignment was not shown to be so far removed from Halberg’s prior responsibilities and skills that it created a materially different position. The court also found that the fact that another employee retained some of Halberg’s former duties did not change that conclusion.

FMLA discrimination claim

Halberg also claimed that Location Services terminated her because she exercised FMLA rights. The court said she had to provide evidence from which a reasonable juror could infer a causal connection between her leave and the termination.

The court found that timing alone was insufficient. Location Services knew of Halberg’s planned leave at least before her October 23, 2019 surgery, while the termination occurred at least three months later. The court also rejected Halberg’s personal opinions and other employees’ beliefs about discrimination as unsupported conclusions rather than specific evidence of discriminatory conduct. The court therefore held that the FMLA discrimination claim could not proceed to trial.

Minnesota Human Rights Act disability-discrimination claim

Halberg claimed that her termination violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act because of a disability. The court held that the record did not allow a reasonable juror to find that she had an impairment that materially limited a major life activity when she was terminated.

By the time Halberg returned to work in January 2020, she had been released to work without restrictions, and the record indicated that her surgery had been successful. Evidence that she had experienced pain during an earlier attempted return to part-time work did not establish her condition at the time of termination. The court also found that a notice about reviewing possible leave under the Americans with Disabilities Act did not show that the leave had been approved or that Halberg had the relevant impairment.

Minnesota Human Rights Act reprisal claim

Halberg’s complaint identified an MHRA reprisal count by title, but the court found that the count contained no legal or factual allegations supporting a reprisal claim. Halberg described a retaliation theory in her summary-judgment brief based on requesting disability accommodation, but that theory was not pleaded in the complaint.

The court held that the claim failed for that procedural reason. It also held that the claim would fail on the merits because the record contained no evidence of a causal connection between Halberg’s request for FMLA leave and her termination. The court further stated that a third party’s possible review of leave under the Americans with Disabilities Act did not constitute protected activity by Halberg.

Disposition

The court granted Location Services’ motion for summary judgment. It ordered that Halberg’s claims be dismissed with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered.