United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
G. Carr Sr. U.S. District Judge.
a suit under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29
U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., and O.R.C. §
4112.01, et seq.
Management Registry Inc. and Malone Staffing Georgia, LLC
(jointly, MRI) are temporary staffing agencies that provided
employees, including plaintiff Mark Boyed, to defendant Dana
Driveshaft Manufacturing (misnamed Dana Incorporated) (Dana).
Defendant Donathan was plaintiff's supervisor at Dana.
Defendant Bailey is an employee of MRI.
who is bipolar and schizophrenic, claims that the defendants
failed to inform him of his rights under the FMLA and
interfered with his exercise of those rights.
has filed a motion to dismiss the FMLA claim against it, and
thereon, to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over plaintiff's state law claims, as to which there is
no diversity of citizenship. (Doc. 11).
reasons that follow, I grant Dana's motion.
his mental illness, plaintiff from time to time needed to
obtain medial treatment, often without much warning. He never
made a formal FMLA request. About six months before the
events giving rise to this suit, a Dana lead supervisor, Mr.
Clayton, had told the plaintiff that if he ever had an issue
about attending a medical appointment simply to go to the
appointment. According to plaintiff, Clayton had said,
“just tell whoever had the issue that Clayton said it
plaintiff alleges that both Dana and MRI were aware of his
illness, plaintiff first told Donathan about his condition on
May 20, 2015. After he made that disclosure, Donathan's
attitude toward plaintiff visibly changed; their
relationship, which had been friendly, was no longer so.
the effect on his mental state of Donathan's changed
attitude, plaintiff wanted to seek medical treatment. The
earliest available appointment was June 5, 2015, at 6:15 p.m.
On June 1st plaintiff asked his supervisor at MRI, defendant
Chad Bailey, for approval to work on June 5th from
3:00pm-5:30pm, and return at 7:00pm to finish the shift.
Bailey indicated that he had to obtain final approval from
4th, Bailey told plaintiff he had spoken with Donathan, and
was not able to approve plaintiff's request to go to the
appointment. If plaintiff went any way, Bailey said, he'd
lose his job at Dana. Plaintiff told Bailey how important the
appointment was. He also told him about lead supervisor
Clayton's statement to him six months earlier to go to
his appointments if he needed to do so. Plaintiff assumed
he'd be covered during his absence on June 5th.
5th, plaintiff arrived early for his shift at 2:15pm. Before
he could begin, a Dana guard stopped him and escorted him to
a room. Bailey entered and told plaintiff his assignment at
Dana was ending. According to Bailey, Donathan decided to
terminate the assignment for “attitude” and
claims disability discrimination under O.R.C. § 4112.01,
et seq., as to all defendants, aiding and abetting
disability discrimination against Donathan and Bailey, and
interference with his rights under the FMLA, due to the
failure to notify him of those rights, against all
gravamen of Dana's motion is that it, despite its
employment of plaintiff, had no obligation under the FMLA to
advise him of his FMLA rights or to grant him FMLA leave.
That obligation rested, instead, Dana argues, solely with
basis for this contention is that Dana, although it might
have been plaintiff's “joint employer, ”
along with MRI, for purposes of the FMLA, see 29
C.F.R. § § 825.106(b)(1), Dana was his
“secondary employer.” As such, it had no
obligation to advise the plaintiff of his FMLA rights. That
duty, Dana contends, belonged to MRI alone because MRI was
plaintiff's “primary employer.” See
29 C.F.R. ...