Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Michael Simons v. Boston Scientific, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 17-3824 · judgment March 22, 2019


Certiorari denied · October 7, 2019
Pre-decision estimate: 4% cert probability

Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Third Circuit decision below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a petition filed soon after the judgment below.

Questions presented

  1. Whether, in an FMLA wrongful discharge retaliation claim, the McDonnell Douglas three-prong analysis is appropriate, where the Circuit Courts have held that the McDonnell Douglas framework does not apply to FMLA interference claims.

  2. Whether, in an FMLA Leave retaliation claim, in the prime facie analysis under the McDonnell Douglas test, a causal connection established by a very close temporal proximity between the termination and FMLA leave may be defeated as a matter of law on summary judgment by Respondent’s purported legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its action.

  3. Whether Petitioner may prove pretext in an FMLA retaliation claim by evidence that defendant actually made the decision to terminate him immediately upon his return from protected leave but later developed its multiple reasons as justification, including a matter to which it had no knowledge at the time of the actual decision, thereby showing the stated reasons were not the motivating reasons for his termination, rather than being required to refute each and every one of the employer’s articulated reasons for its decision.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
William Joseph Martin
Martin, Gunn & Martin

For respondent
Charles Feeney Knapp
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Oct 07 2019
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jul 24 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
  3. Jul 15 2019
    Waiver of right of respondents Boston Scientific, et al. to respond filed.
  4. Jun 19 2019
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 7, 2019)