Moryn v. G4S Secure Solutions, Inc.

Background

G4S employed Tanya Moryn from May 2007 until September 2020. She advanced from administrative assistant to Human Resources Specialist and then to Human Resources Manager for G4S’s Minneapolis office. The opinion states that she received positive formal performance reviews and no formal discipline or warnings for poor performance.

G4S identified several performance concerns, including failed internal audits involving personnel files and Moryn’s handling of a complaint about inappropriate comments by another employee. G4S did not apply formal progressive discipline or take other formal steps at that time, although the opinion notes uncertainty about whether the company’s progressive-discipline policy formally applied to Moryn.

In spring 2020, Moryn told G4S that she was experiencing significant anxiety and requested time off. On June 5, 2020, she suffered a panic attack, sought medical care, and was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. G4S later granted medical leave through August 31, 2020. G4S claimed that it had already decided to terminate Moryn in May, but the court noted that Moryn was not told before or during her leave that her job was in jeopardy.

On August 31, Moryn presented a doctor’s note requesting five additional days of leave, a three-day workweek for two weeks, and a gradual return to full-time work. On September 2, G4S told her that the requested schedule could not be accommodated and terminated her employment. G4S later offered her $20,211.12 in severance. After Moryn questioned the termination, G4S cited performance issues and lack of professionalism as reasons for the decision.

Moryn brought claims for retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act; disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act; and failure to pay earned paid time off under Minnesota Statute section 181.13. G4S moved for summary judgment on all claims. Moryn agreed to voluntarily dismiss the paid-time-off claim but opposed summary judgment on the other claims.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. The court applied this standard to determine whether a reasonable factfinder could rule for Moryn.

Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation

The Family and Medical Leave Act allows eligible employees to take up to twelve workweeks of unpaid leave during a twelve-month period and prohibits retaliation for exercising that right. The court found no dispute that Moryn engaged in protected activity by taking leave or that her termination was an adverse employment action.

The court held that Moryn presented enough evidence of a causal connection for her claim to proceed. Her termination occurred shortly after she requested additional leave and a temporary part-time schedule. During the termination call, G4S linked the decision to its need for a full-time human-resources manager and Moryn’s perceived inability to handle the workload while seeking additional leave. The court also found a genuine dispute about when G4S made the termination decision because Moryn had not been warned that her performance threatened her job, and G4S’s explanations developed over time.

G4S offered performance issues and lack of professionalism as legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the termination. The court concluded that Moryn presented evidence from which a factfinder could find those reasons were pretexts—stated reasons that were not the real reasons. The court cited the lack of a contemporaneous record of the alleged May termination decision, G4S’s shifting explanations, and its failure to document or communicate performance problems or follow its usual disciplinary practices. Summary judgment on the Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim was denied.

Minnesota Human Rights Act disability discrimination

The Minnesota Human Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on disability. The court held that Moryn’s anxiety and depression materially limited her ability to concentrate, focus, and sleep, and that she had medical records showing treatment for those conditions. The court therefore found that she qualified as disabled under the statute.

The court also held that Moryn had shown she was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job. She had held the position since 2016, received confirmation of the role after a 2019 reorganization, and had positive formal evaluations. The court noted that Moryn sought only a temporary part-time schedule to return to work, not permanent part-time employment. Because she established the required initial showing and G4S relied on performance issues as its stated reason, the court examined whether that reason could be pretextual.

The court found factual disputes concerning the timing and reason for the termination. It stated that G4S’s initial explanation—that it needed someone able to handle a stressful and unpredictable environment—could suggest that the company relied on Moryn’s anxiety rather than the later performance-based explanation. Summary judgment on the disability-discrimination claim was denied.

Minnesota Human Rights Act retaliation

The Minnesota Human Rights Act also prohibits retaliation against an employee who requests a reasonable accommodation for a disability. The court held that Moryn engaged in protected conduct by requesting an accommodation and that her termination was an adverse employment action. Because G4S terminated her two days after she submitted the doctor’s note requesting a gradual return to work, the court found sufficient evidence of a causal connection at this stage.

G4S again relied on performance issues as its legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. For the reasons discussed with the other claims, the court found a sufficient factual dispute about whether that explanation was pretextual. Summary judgment on this retaliation claim was denied.

Failure to accommodate

The Minnesota Human Rights Act requires an employer to make reasonable accommodations for a known disability of a qualified disabled person unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship. Moryn requested five more days of leave and three weeks of part-time scheduling before returning full-time. G4S rejected the request because it said it needed a full-time human-resources manager immediately.

The court found a material factual dispute about whether G4S could have accommodated Moryn. G4S had covered her duties during her leave and continued doing so until it hired a full-time replacement, which occurred after Moryn would have returned to full-time work. The court also noted that reassignment to a vacant position is specifically identified as a reasonable accommodation under the statute, and G4S acknowledged that it did not consider moving Moryn to another role because it wanted a “clean break.” Summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claim was denied.

Paid-time-off claim and disposition

Moryn agreed to abandon her claim for compensation for unused paid time off. The court dismissed that claim under Minnesota Statute section 181.13.

The court denied G4S’s motion for summary judgment. As a result, the order left Moryn’s Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation, Minnesota Human Rights Act disability-discrimination, Minnesota Human Rights Act retaliation, and failure-to-accommodate claims unresolved. The order does not state that the paid-time-off claim was dismissed with or without prejudice.