LOZANO v. KAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY

The opinion of the court was delivered by: PAUL PLUNKETT, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Rodrigo Lozano ("Plaintiff") has sued Kay Manufacturing Company ("Kay" or "Defendant") for its alleged violations of the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. Lozano claims Kay violated his rights by refusing to offer benefits as provided by FMLA. Kay has filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 56 motion for summary judgment alleging that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant was in violation of FMLA because Plaintiff has failed to plead each element of an FMLA violation. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is denied.

Background

  In January 1999, Plaintiff was hired as a machine operator with Kay and remained in that position until his termination in April 2002. (Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶¶ 4,5.) Plaintiff reported to Wayne Raker and operated a "chucker" machine, which is a machine that grinds and finishes customized metal pieces. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10, 11.) To operate the machine, Plaintiff manually inserted and tightened metal parts into the clamp or "chuck" of the machine. (Id. ¶ 13.) At each work station, there were written procedures posted to instruct how to properly operate the machine. The procedures also required that the parts were to be checked for conformity at the beginning of each shift, every fifteen minutes during the shift, after lunch, and at the end of the shift. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 16, 17, 20.) Furthermore, the procedures directed employees to notify a supervisor if a problem arose with the machine or tools. (Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 24.) However, Plaintiff claims that these posted procedures were often ignored. (Pl.'s LR 56.1(b) Stmt. ¶¶ 14, 16, 24.)

  Prior to mid-April 2000, Plaintiff and other machinists received oral warnings for producing nonconforming parts from time to time. After mid-April however, the frequency of Plaintiff's violations began to increase. On April 21, 2000, Plaintiff was issued a written warning for running his machine without checking the conformity of the parts. (Pl.'s LR 56.1(b) Stmt. ¶¶ 28, 29.) On August 3, 2001, Plaintiff was cited for incorrectly creating customized parts. (Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶¶ 25, 33.) Later that same month, Plaintiff's machine broke down. He tried to repair it on his own because he alleges his supervisor told him to figure out the problem. (Pl.'s LR 56.1(b) Stmt. ¶ 36.) On August 24, 2001, Plaintiff was issued another written warning and was put on probation. Plaintiff admits he received this warning and probation, but contends that the reasons for the warning do not accurately recount what occurred. (Id. 37, 38). Lozano was taken off probation during his January 2002 performance evaluation. (Id. 43.)

  In January 2002, Plaintiff was absent from work due to an illness characterized by the hospital as hyperglycemia. (Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 44, 46.) Plaintiff was then seen in the hospital on February 5, 2002, and was discharged with a diagnosis of tremors, diabetes and hyperventilation. (Id. 47, 48.) Plaintiff was subsequently absent from work from February 6, 2002 to March 17, 2002. (Pl.'s LR 56.1(b) Stmt. ¶ 49.) During this absence, Plaintiff received discharge papers from a hospital stating a diagnosis of delirium tremens and diabetes mellitus. (Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 51.) Hospital records also show that Plaintiff was seen because of suicidal ideation and chronic drug overdose and that Plaintiff suffered from major depression and panic attacks. (Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 53, 55; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b) Stmt. ¶ 53, 54, 56.) Also, in March 2002, while at one of the hospitals, Plaintiff told the treating physician of his hand pain and the physician told him "he might have carpal tunnel syndrome" and that he should look into it with his doctor. (Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 60 and Ex. 3, at 149-50.)

  On March 18, 2002, Plaintiff presented a note stating that he had been in doctor's care, and he was able to return to work on a full-time basis, and he was allowed to do so. (Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 61.) Kay had paid Plaintiff short-term disability benefits for his extended absence from February 6, 2002 to March 17, 2002. (Id. ¶ 58.) Plaintiff's application for short-term disability benefits stated that he had been absent because of anxiety and diabetic complications, as well as major depression and panic attacks. (Pl.'s LR 56.1(b) Stmt. ¶ 59.) Plaintiff's doctor, Darryl Forston, considered Plaintiff's depression and anxiety as "serious" health conditions. (Id. 91.) Plaintiff informed Kay's human resources department of his mental diagnosis. (Id. 105.) After his return in March 2002, Plaintiff told his supervisor that "his hand did not feel right" and that he had a problem and that he felt there was something wrong with his hand. (Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 62). When Plaintiff informed his supervisors of his hand discomfort, he was told to slow down. (Id. 85.) Plaintiff did not share this information with any other Kay representatives. (Pl.'s LR 56.1(b) Stmt. ¶ 63.)

  According to Lozano, he was able to perform his job, except for his limitations resulting from his major depression, severe panic/anxiety disorder, ulnar nerve disorder and carpal tunnel syndrome ("CTS"). (Pl.'s LR 56.1(b) Stmt. ¶ 84.) Plaintiff believes that Raker was aware of his CTS symptoms, but that Lozano was unaware of the FMLA benefits available for such a condition. (Id. 87, 88.)

  Meanwhile, Plaintiff admittedly continued to make mistakes. On March 20, 2002, he improperly loaded a machine and consequently made non-conforming parts that had to be discarded. (Id. 64.) On April 1, 2002, the machine was again improperly sized. Plaintiff states that the mistake was due to his hand problems, but concedes he did not advise his supervisor. (Id. 65.) On April 11, 2002, Plaintiff also had to throw several parts out due to improper loading and again attributed this to his hand problems. (Id. 66.) On April 15, 2002, Plaintiff was observed not "blowing out the chucks" as required by Kay's procedures, but Plaintiff asserts this was common practice and many other machinists did the same. (Id. 67.) After Raker corrected Plaintiff and advised him to be sure to follow each step in the procedures, on that very same day, he was again found not blowing the chucks out. (Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 68.) On April 17, 2002, Plaintiff left his machine improperly sized, but says he did so because his replacement on the next shift told him to leave it that way. (Pl.'s LR 56.1(b) Stmt. ¶ 69.) On April 19, 2002 after completing his shift, Plaintiff was informed that he was being discharged. (Def's LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 73.) During the termination, Plaintiff informed Angela Nowell, Kay's president, and Raker that he had a "problem" with his hand and then abruptly left the office and was found in a nearby locker room in a fetal position on the floor. (Id. ¶¶ 74, 75, 76.) Plaintiff was formally diagnosed with CTS and ulnar neuropathy one month later in May 2002. (Pl.'s LR 56.1(b) Stmt. ¶ 79.) Approximately one year later, Plaintiff had ulnar nerve transposition and CTS release surgery on April 15, 2003. (Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 81.) The Legal Standard

  In order for a party to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, [must] show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). At this stage, we may not weigh the evidence or make any credibility determinations. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). We view all evidence and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record as a whole establishes that no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party. Id.

  Additionally, where "undisputed facts give rise to disputed inferences," summary judgment is not appropriate. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. v. Powersports, Inc., 319 F.3d 973, 989 (7th Cir. 2003) (ruling that "the choice between reasonable inferences from facts is a function of the fact-finder"). See also Ramirez v. Nutrasweet Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17111, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 1997) ("if the evidence presented by the parties is subject to conflicting interpretations, or if reasonable minds could differ as to its significance, summary judgment must not be granted") (citing O'Connor v. Chicago Transit Auth., 985 F.2d 1366 (7th Cir. 1993)).

  Discussion

  Plaintiff alleges that Kay violated the FMLA. That statute entitles an eligible employee to up to twelve workweeks of leave if, among other reasons, "a serious health condition . . . makes the employee unable to perform the functions of [his] position." 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D). To state an FMLA claim, Plaintiff must allege that: (1) he is an eligible employee, meaning he was employed for at least twelve months by Kay and worked at least 1,250 hours during the preceding twelve-month period (29 U.S.C. §§ 2611(2), 2612(a)(1)); (2) Kay is an employer covered by the statute, or specifically that Kay is "engaged in . . . an[] industry or activity affecting commerce [and] employs 50 or more employees for each working day during each of twenty or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year" (29 U.S.C. § 2611(4)); (3) Plaintiff was entitled to leave because he had "a serious health condition that ma[de] [him] unable to perform the functions of [his] position" (29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D)); and (4) Kay was aware of Plaintiff's need for leave but refused to provide it (29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1); 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.302-03).