On November 22, 2002, in an unpublished decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire granting summary judgment to the defendant in the matter of Ruth Pierce v. Alice Peck Day Memorial Hospital.⁽¹⁾ 

The case was brought by a former employee of the hospital after she resigned in lieu of termination. Asserting that her resignation was, in effect, a constructive termination, the plaintiff brought suit under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)⁽²⁾. The plaintiff claimed that she had been terminated in retaliation for using leave to visit her dying father. The hospital claimed that the termination stemmed from increasing dissatisfaction with the plaintiff's performance in her job as the laboratory manager, and was in no way related to her use of protected leave. 

In granting summary judgment, the district court applied the same burden-shifting analysis as is utilized in Title VII discrimination cases and found that the hospital easily met its burden of articulating a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the plaintiff's termination. 

Turning to the plaintiff's burden, the court determined that the plaintiff could not produce sufficient evidence to reach a jury on the issue of whether the defendant's stated reason for her termination was pretext for a retaliatory reason. The only evidence offered by the plaintiff on the issue of pretext was the fact that her leave was taken contemporaneously with the changes in the laboratory management (hiring of a consultant and advising plaintiff that her role would change) and the fact that the plaintiff's supervisor had made a stray remark, referring to her leave as "vacation". The court concluded that a rational jury simply could not find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the hospital forced the plaintiff's resignation because she took two weeks of FMLA leave. Thus, summary judgment was granted for the hospital.

On appeal, the First Circuit issued a Per Curium decision, affirming summary judgment. The appellate court stated simply that it agreed with at least one reason offered by the defendant for the plaintiff's termination and that the plaintiff had failed to offer any evidence to show that this reason was pretextual.

Notes:

1.   The District Court decision (docket number 00-318-M) was rendered on March 11, 2002. It is unpublished; however, the full text is available at http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov. Search for opinion number 2002 DNH 058. The First Circuit's docket number is 02-1390.