Goelzer v. Sheboygan Cty. - 604 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 2010)

Rule:

A plaintiff may proceed under the direct or indirect methods of proof when attempting to establish a Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 2615(a)(2), retaliation claim. Under the direct method, a plaintiff must present evidence that her employer took a materially adverse action against her because of her protected activity. If the plaintiff's evidence is contradicted, the case must proceed to trial unless the employer presents unrebutted evidence that it would have taken the adverse action against the plaintiff even if it did not have a retaliatory motive. A plaintiff survives summary judgment by creating a triable issue of whether the adverse employment action of which she complains had a discriminatory motivation.

Facts:

After two decades of employment with her county government, Dorothy Goelzer was fired from her job. Her supervisor informed her of the termination decision two weeks before she was scheduled to begin two months of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This leave did not mark the first time Goelzer was away from work on FMLA leave, as Goelzer had taken a significant amount of authorized FMLA leave during the four preceding years to deal with her own health issues and those of her mother and husband. After she lost her job, Goelzer brought this suit and alleged that her employer had interfered with her right to reinstatement under the FMLA and had retaliated against her for taking FMLA leave. The defendants contend that her supervisor simply decided to hire another person with a larger skill set. The district court agreed with the defendants and granted summary judgment against Goelzer. 

Issue:

Did Goelzer produce sufficient evidence for the case to be presented to a trier of fact?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

 In reversing the summary judgment ruling, the court concluded that Goelzer had marshaled enough evidence for the case to be presented to a trier of fact. In particular, the court noted that the supervisor's comments suggested his dissatisfaction with Goelzer’s use of FMLA leave, and the positive performance reviews and the timing of the termination raised disputed issues of material fact warranting submission of these claims to a jury.