An Edwardsville asbestos firm argues that it had a “valid” reason to terminate a former paralegal who claims she was fired for requesting intermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Plaintiff Bobbie Jones filed the original complaint on April 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Flint Law Firm, alleging she was wrongfully terminated.
Flint Law Firm filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 26.
The law firm argued that it communicated with Jones about her absences and tardiness to work in July 2017. The next month, Jones was approved intermittent FMLA leave. In response, her daily job duties were changed to accommodate her intermittent leave, but her official title, compensation and benefits were not changed.
The defendant argued that in December 2017 it added back-up secretary responsibilities to Jones’ job duties. She was terminated in late August 2018.
“Plaintiff does not allege she was the only employee of Flint Law Firm terminated in August 2018, only that other employees who began working after plaintiff were not terminated in August 2018,” the motion states.
Flint Law Firm argued that Jones fails to allege that her disability and FMLA leave were causally related to her discharge from the firm.
The defendant also argued that Jones’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
Jones filed an opposition to Flint Law Firm’s motion to dismiss on July 13 through attorney Michelle Faron of McMichael Logan Schaeffer & Gilpin in Kirkwood.
“Complaints initiate the litigation but need not cover everything necessary for the plaintiff to win; factual details and legal arguments come later,” the opposition stated.
Jones argued that she sufficiently pled facts that she was disabled due to a “serious medical condition,” was qualified to perform the functions of her position, her FMLA accommodations were reasonable to attend doctor’s appointments, was treated worse than co-workers and was terminated after being stripped of her job title.
Jones also argued that the defendant improperly implies that she had training interpreting the law and applying the law like an attorney.
“Defendant omits the fact that plaintiff was an asbestos paralegal,” the opposition stated.
“Plaintiff received on the job training on how to become a paralegal, but she did not attend any special schools to receive paralegal training. Plaintiff has never worked for a law firm doing paralegal work on discrimination matters, nor has plaintiff been trained on the application of the law for discrimination, outside of any human resource training that is given to employees by an employer,” it continued.
Jones disagreed that her complaint was defective, but also filed a motion for leave to file the amended complaint in order to “cure deficiencies.”
Jones filed an amended complaint on Aug. 12, seeking “reinstatement, damages and injunctive relief to redress the deprivation of rights” under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.
According to the complaint, Jones was hired by Flint Law Firm to work as an asbestos paralegal in April 2014. Just before she was terminated, she was paid $23.50 per hour, received company-sponsored benefits, and worked between 37.5 and 40 hours per week.
She alleges that in 2017, she suffered from health problems that made physical movements difficult and required her to attend doctor’s appointments, resulting in occasional tardiness and absences. She claims she suffered from low back pain, sciatica, migraines, psoriatic arthritis, fibromyalgia, depression, sleep apnea, hidradenitis suppurativa and insomnia. Jones claims she was still able to complete the essential functions of her job.
Jones alleges she was reprimanded for her absences and tardiness in July 2017 by partner Jacob Flint. Then in August 2017, she requested, and was granted, intermittent leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act. She claims her leave did not interfere with her work performance. She claims she was later given different job duties, and her work station was moved to another location.
“Plaintiff repeatedly requested that she could have her job back, only to be told that she could return to her original job or an equivalent job when she was no longer on FMLA,” the suit states.
In December 2017, Jones claims her job duties changed to include those of a backup receptionist. In May 2018, the defendant allegedly posted her position of asbestos litigation paralegal. She later learned she was being terminated for “reduction of workforce” in August 2018, the suit states.
Flint Law Firm answered the amended complaint on Sept. 23 through attorneys Joseph Spitzzeri and Amber Lukowicz of Johnson and Bell LTD in Chicago.
In its affirmative defenses, the defendant argues that it had a “valid, non-pretextual basis to terminate” Jones.
“The FMLA does not entitle plaintiff to any different treatment than she would have received absent her FMLA leave,” the answer states.
The defendant also argues that Jones failed to seek similar employment after she was terminated and failed to mitigate her damages.
U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:20-cv-333