Dulinski v. North Homes, Inc.

Background

Tennelle Dulinski worked for North Homes, Inc., doing business as North Homes Children and Family Services, as a Mental Health Practitioner at Southwest Elementary School. Her work involved school-based skills training, rather than mental-health therapy. During her employment, school personnel and North Homes employees raised concerns about her preparation, interactions with students and staff, clothing, and compliance with workplace expectations.

In September 2018, Dulinski suffered a dog-related neck injury and was later diagnosed with Chiari Malformation, Type I. She informed North Homes of her condition on March 13, 2019, and requested intermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, or FMLA. North Homes approved the leave. She also received a strong performance review on March 14, 2019.

On March 29, 2019, Southwest’s contact with North Homes, Chris Brown, emailed North Homes supervisors about continuing concerns with Dulinski’s performance. After discussions with Brown and Southwest’s special-education director, North Homes removed Dulinski from Southwest. North Homes concluded that it could not place her in another school-based position because of the performance feedback. It offered her a community-based position, but her doctor later stated that her medical restrictions prevented her from performing that job’s driving and scheduling requirements. North Homes withdrew the offer and terminated her on July 18, 2019, after stating that she had exhausted her paid time off and FMLA leave and that no available position fit her medical restrictions.

Claims and arguments

Dulinski asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA; the Minnesota Human Rights Act, or MHRA; and the FMLA. The claims alleged disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, retaliation, FMLA discrimination, FMLA retaliation, and denial of FMLA entitlement rights.

North Homes moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence requires a trial or instead entitles one side to judgment as a matter of law. North Homes argued that Dulinski could not perform the essential functions of the community-based position and that Southwest’s performance concerns prevented placement in another school-based position. It also argued that it had accommodated her by approving FMLA leave and other requests.

Court’s analysis

For the ADA, MHRA, and FMLA discrimination claims, the court assumed without deciding that Dulinski had made the initial showing required for her claims. It held that North Homes had provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decisions: Southwest’s demand that Dulinski be removed, North Homes’s performance concerns, her inability to perform the essential functions of the community-based position, and the expiration of her paid time off and FMLA leave. The court found that Dulinski had not produced enough evidence for a reasonable juror to find that those reasons were a pretext—meaning a false explanation used to hide unlawful discrimination.

The court rejected Dulinski’s arguments that North Homes had shifted its explanation, that the concerns had escalated from minor issues, and that her positive performance reviews showed pretext. It found that the evidence showed continuing performance concerns and a direct request from Southwest that she be removed. It also found no evidence that North Homes withdrew the community-based position for a reason other than her inability to perform its essential functions.

The court rejected the ADA and MHRA failure-to-accommodate claims. Dulinski identified placement in another school-based position and continued intermittent FMLA leave while working at Southwest as requested accommodations. The court held that these accommodations were not reasonable under the circumstances because Southwest had demanded her removal and North Homes had decided not to place her in another school-based position based on the feedback it received.

The court also rejected the ADA and MHRA retaliation claims because Dulinski did not provide additional evidence showing that North Homes’s stated reasons were pretextual. It rejected the FMLA retaliation claim because Brown’s email focused on performance, not on Dulinski’s health or leave, and the decision to remove her followed discussions about her performance and Southwest’s request.

For the FMLA entitlement claim, the court recognized that the change from the school-based position to the community-based position could raise a question about whether the positions were equivalent because the hours and location differed. But the court held that North Homes showed Dulinski would have been removed from Southwest and offered the community-based position even if she had not taken FMLA leave. The court also held that, even assuming the FMLA recognizes a claim based on forcing an employee to take continuous leave, Dulinski’s claim was not ripe because she did not allege that the forced leave later prevented her from using FMLA leave to which she was entitled.

Disposition

The court granted North Homes’s motion for summary judgment as to all counts in the complaint. This included the ADA and MHRA discrimination claims, the FMLA discrimination claim, the ADA and MHRA failure-to-accommodate claims, the ADA and MHRA retaliation claims, the FMLA retaliation claim, and the FMLA entitlement claim. The court ordered that judgment be entered for North Homes.