Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 05-2087
CARLOS G. CSICSMANN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL
S.
SALLADA,
JR.;
INCORPORATED, formerly known as
Management Systems, Incorporated,
CGI-AMS,
American
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-04-1094-GBL)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant
Carlos
Csicsmann
(Csicsmann),
an
information
technology worker, took leave under the Family and Medical Leave
Act, 29 U.S.C. 2614(a)(3)(B) (FMLA) after having hip surgery.
Following his return to work, Csicsmann brought this action against
CGI-AMS, Inc. (CGI-AMS) and co-worker Michael S. Sallada, Jr.
(Sallada) (together Appellees), alleging that the Appellees:
(1) failed to restore him to an equivalent position under the
FMLA;
(2)
regard[ed]
him
as
disabled
in
violation
of
the
For
I.
Given the procedural posture of this case, we summarize the
facts in the light most favorable to Csicsmann.
Application, 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir. 1996).
Evans v. Techs
In November 2003,
He
the
Vice
President
of
Information
Technology,
Don
Hirsch
and Sallada engaged in a heated argument when some AMS offices lost
computer connectivity. Csicsmann allegedly reported the incident to
Vice President Hirsch and complained that Sallada badger[ed]
certain types of people. J.A. 328.
Soon after the argument with Sallada, in December 2003,
Csicsmann took FMLA leave to have hip surgery.
office until February 25, 2004. After his return to AMS, Csicsmann
learned that his position had been eliminated and that he would be
working on the Disaster Recovery Project.
assert
that
they
designed
the
Csicsmanns supervisors
Disaster
Recovery
position
specifically to suit his vast skill set and that they assigned
him the high-level responsibility of developing a disaster recovery
plan, as well as creating processes for recovering corporate IT
infrastructure in the case of a disaster.
Csicsmanns salary,
for
long-term
disability
status
which
he
never
submitted.
On March 10, 2004, AMS announced its impending merger with CGI
Group Inc., and a CGI employee was tasked with eliminating 10% of
the positions in the IT department in which Csicsmann worked.
On
end
of
2004,
all
of
the
duties
previously
handled
by
and
eliminated.
all
of
the
Csicsmann
Server
has
held
Group
positions
other
at
employment
AMS
since
were
his
termination.
II.
After his termination, Csicsmann filed suit challenging AMSs
conduct towards him in several respects.
According to
and
his
assignment
to
it
constituted
an
adverse
employment action.
The district court rejected all of Csicsmanns claims.
The
court found that Csicsmanns new position was equivalent under the
FMLA and that the assignment to it did not constitute an adverse
employment action.
Csicsmann was not regarded as disabled under the ADA and therefore
he had no claim for an accommodation.
On appeal Csicsmann challenges each of these conclusions,
which we consider in turn. This court reviews the district courts
grant of summary judgment de novo. Med. Waste Assocs. v. Mayor of
Baltimore, 966 F.2d 148, 150 (4th Cir. 1992).
We do so bearing in
III.
A.
We first consider whether the district court erred in granting
the Appellees summary judgment on Csicsmanns FMLA claim.
Because
does
not
extend
to
de
minimis
or
intangible,
Csicsmann
argues
that
the
new
position
was
not
He further
is
fact-dependent
issue
for
the
jury.
These
Although Csicsmann
argues that the new position was less prestigious and less visible
than the pre-leave position, these are the very intangible aspects
of
the
position
determination.
See
appropriately
29
C.F.R.
excluded
825.215.
from
an
The
equivalency
concrete
and
B.
We next consider whether the district court erred in granting
the Appellees summary judgment on Cscicsmanns claim that Sallada
regarded him as disabled in violation of the ADA.
Again, we find
no error.
The ADA protects an employee against discrimination by an
employer
if
the
employee
is
qualified
individual
with
See
Haulbrook,
252
F.3d
at
704
(affirming
summary
Moreover,
Even
We
C.
We hold that because Csicsmann fails to make out a prima facie
case of retaliation under the FMLA, ERISA, or Title VII, the
district courts grant of summary judgment to the Appellees on the
three retaliation claims was proper.
Our analysis of a retaliation claim under FMLA and ERISA is
similar to that under Title VII, requiring as a threshold matter
that the employee make out a prima facie case. See Yashenko, 446
F.3d at 55051 (finding that retaliation analysis under the FMLA
follows the Title VII framework); Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec.
Corp., 933 F.2d 231, 239 (4th Cir. 1991) (finding that retaliation
analysis
under
ERISA
follows
the
Title
VII
framework).
To
employment
action
against
[him],
and
(3)
causal
the
reasons
discussed
above,
Csicsmanns
retaliation
10
See James v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, 368 F.3d 371, 376 (4th Cir.
2004). The Supreme Court has recently clarified that to constitute
an adverse employment action, the plaintiff must show that a
reasonable employee would have found the challenged action to be
materially adverse. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Rwy. Co. v.
White, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 2415 (2006).
while factors other than the terms and conditions of employment may
be examined in determining whether an adverse employment action
occurred, this is still a heavy burden for the plaintiff: the
alleged adverse action must be material.
241215.
Here, Csicsmann argues that both the elimination of his preleave position and his placement in the new Disaster Recovery job
are adverse employment actions for FMLA and Title VII purposes.
This court has never found an affirmative action on facts like
11
material
harm
here-indeed,
he
offers
only
evidence
of
position.
As
an
adverse
employment
action
is
long-term
disability
application
is
protected
12
IV.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that the order of
the district court is
AFFIRMED.
13
judgment
in
favor
of
Appellees
on
Appellants
FMLA
(B); Yashenko v. Harrahs NC Casino Co., LLC, 446 F.3d 541,546 (4th
Cir.2006)(2614(a) prescribes a substantive floor for employers
conduct
citations
and
creates
omitted).
entitlements
Section
for
825.215(a)of
employees)(internal
the
Code
of
Federal
29 C.F.R. 825.215(f).
presented in this case give rise to a jury question and that the
district court erred by deciding this issue as a matter of law.
As
Group
Manager,
Csicsmann
was
tasked
with
As
primary
responsibility for keeping AMSs servers up and running around-theclock, three hundred and sixty-five days a year. Csicsmann managed
and supervised a team of approximately twenty-four (24) people, was
responsible
for
multi-million
dollar
budget,
had
limited
with
AMSs
Technology department.
Financial
Advisor
to
the
Information
15
reassignment,
Csicsmann
retained
the
same
level
of
It is undisputed that
More importantly,
already
noted,
in
the
light
most
favorable
to
16
position did not require the skill or effort that the SGM position
required.
In addition, the loss of supervisory or managerial authority
cannot
neatly
unmeasurable.
be
classified
The
loss
as
of
de
minimis,
management
intangible,
or
or
supervisory
than
the
purported
differences
in
duties
previously
17
former
supervisor,
was
under
impression
that
As a result, the
employee
may
be
entitled
to
return
to
the
same
position
18
Given the
19