142685P.pdf   09/04/2015  Jessica Brown  v.  Diversified Distribution
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2685
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Bright, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Civil case - Family and Medical Leave Act. In action claiming defendant 
   had denied plaintiff an entitlement under the FMLA by failing to restore 
   plaintiff to the account executive position she held before she went on 
   FMLA leave,the district court erred in granting defendant's motion for 
   summary judgment as plaintiff was not restored to the position or an 
   equivalent position; the district court did not err in granting defendant 
   summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that defendant discriminated against 
   her by demoting her to a backup position upon her return from leave as she 
   failed to rebut defendant's evidence that the move was contemplated before 
   she exercised her FMLA rights; plaintiff established a prima facie case 
   that she was terminated in retaliation for complaining about a violation 
   of her FMLA rights, and while defendant provided a legitimate, 
   non-retaliatory reason for its action (downsizing after the loss of a 
   major account), the temporal proximity of the events and the fact that 
   defendant had known about the need to downsize but only acted after 
   plaintiff engaged in protective activity was enough to create an issue of 
   fact on the claim and the district court erred in granting summary 
   judgment for the defendant on the retaliation claim; plaintiff failed to 
   show actual damages from the delay in receiving her personnel file and the 
   district court did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary 
   judgment on plaintiff's claim under Minn. Stat. Sec. 181.961; given the 
   similarity between plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim and her claim under 
   Minn. Stat. Sec. 181.932, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to 
   whether the termination letter defendant provided under the provisions of 
   the state law set forth the truthful reasons for plaintiff's discharge, 
   and the district court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant on 
   this state law claim. Judge Bright, concurring.