A panel of judges from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court’s decision that favored a basketball coach, who alleged that his employer violated the Family and Medical Leave Act when it reduced his coaching supplement.
In short, the panel found that the plaintiff received more pay than he deserved and, thus, “was not prejudiced by the reduction in the coaching supplement after he returned from leave.”
Milton Harris was a veteran teacher and coach in the Metropolitan Nashville School System. From 1993 to 2003, Harris taught health and served as the head boys’ varsity basketball coach at McGavock High School. Each year that the plaintiff coached, he received a “coaching supplement,” which was calculated based on his gross annual teaching salary. Yearly coaching assignments were made by the principal and coaching supplements were paid over the whole school year, beginning with the first pay period in the fall, regardless of when the season began. In 2003, the boys’ basketball head coach supplement was 12 percent.
Harris reported for school in August 2003 and worked several days before taking leave to undergo prostate cancer surgery. He returned to work in mid-October and held a few meetings regarding the upcoming basketball season. The plaintiff worked only five days, however, before he suffered a heart attack that kept him from returning to work until Jan. 12, 2004. In the plaintiff’s absence, the basketball team was coached by Marlon Simms, the assistant coach who received a 6 percent coaching supplement, and Terry Watson, a volunteer coach who died suddenly during the season and was replaced by Arcentae Broome.
Simms visited the plaintiff while he was recuperating and consulted with him about coaching matters. During tryouts in November 2003, Simms approached Tribue for advice because the plaintiff had asked that Simms cut an athlete from the team. Tribue testified that he believed the plaintiff’s reasons had to do with a conflict with the parents and advised Simms to do what he thought best.
In December 2003, after the basketball season was underway, Cirrincione talked to Tribue about the fact that Broome was not being paid anything to coach. Principal Tribue spoke to Scott Brunette, the athletic director for the Metropolitan Nashville Schools, who, in turn, spoke to Dr. June Keel, the assistant superintendent for Human Resources for the Metropolitan Nashville Schools. Keel advised them both that two people could not receive the head coaching supplement, and that an employee was not entitled to receive a coaching supplement while on leave. Although Keel denied it, Brunette testified that she also opined that the FMLA did not apply to coaching supplements. On Dec. 17, 2003, Cirrincione made a written request that plaintiff be “dropped” as head coach; that Simms be made head coach and receive a 12 percent coaching supplement; and that Broome be made assistant coach and receive a 7 percent supplement effective Aug. 11, 2003. Brunette “okayed” the request by making a notation on that memorandum, but the plaintiff was not notified. In fact, as the district court noted, payroll did not make this change and the plaintiff’s supplement was calculated at 12 percent for several more pay periods, with a deduction made against it to recoup the coaching supplement that should not have been paid.
Roughly half of the basketball season was over when the plaintiff returned from leave on Jan.12, 2004. After his next paycheck, Harris became “very upset” and immediately talked to Tribue, who assured him that it was a mistake and reinstated the plaintiff as head coach effective as of his return on Jan. 12, 2004. The plaintiff followed up with a letter to Tribue stating that he trusted the matter was an error and “not an attempt to circumvent the applicable federal and state laws governing employees on authorized sick leave.” Tribue responded in a letter dated Jan. 22, 2004, confirming the plaintiff’s reinstatement but advising him that, according to human resources, the coaching supplement could not be paid for the period that the plaintiff was not coaching.
Tribue also sent Brunette a memorandum requesting that the plaintiff be reinstated, on which Brunette made a hand-written notation of “ok” and “1/2 of 12 percent.” There was evidence that this proration was defendant’s policy, although plaintiff disputed whether it had been followed in every case. The “Agreement on Coaching Responsibilities for 2003-2004,” which plaintiff did not sign until he returned from leave, reiterated that coaching assignments were made on a yearly basis and provided, among other things, that the coach agreed that he would have to “[c]omplete the season to receive the full supplement . . . [and would] be required to pay back any supplement not earned.”
In this case, the plaintiff’s payroll history reflected an adjustment in January 2004 to a 6 percent basketball coaching supplement from which deductions were made to “recoup” overpayments made while plaintiff was on leave. The parties stipulated with respect to damages, (1) that the full 12 percent coaching supplement would have been a total of $6,812.93 for the year, and (2) that the plaintiff actually received a total of $3,728.16 for the year–or a little more than half of the full supplement amount.
The plaintiff complained that despite his reinstatement there were several instances– before and after he filed his EEOC charge in February 2004–in which Simms was treated or referred to as the head coach. The plaintiff also felt he was mistreated with respect to classroom assignment, class composition, and the cancellation of the summer basketball league without consulting with him. While the plaintiff claimed that Tribue ignored him, Tribue testified that it was the plaintiff who avoided him and refused to acknowledge him during a track meet.
Tribue did not make the coaching assignments for boys’ basketball at the same time as he made the other coaching assignments for the 2004-05 school year. Tribue met with Brunette and Keel to discuss naming a different head basketball coach, and they cautioned him that the plaintiff might claim retaliation. The plaintiff received an EEOC right-to-sue letter, and filed the instant lawsuit on Aug. 26, 2004. The district court sided with Harris, awarding him $9,258.82. The defendant appealed.
On appeal, the defendant maintained that the coaching supplement was not an employment benefit protected under the FMLA, that it was not included in plaintiff’s paid leave, and that it was properly adjusted so that plaintiff received the compensation required by his coaching contract, which required him to complete the season to receive the full coaching supplement.
The panel concurred.
“The plaintiff was not entitled to receive the full coaching supplement because he missed half of the season, and the district court erred by failing to consider defendants’ legitimate reason for adjusting the coaching supplement unrelated to plaintiff’s exercise of FMLA rights” the court wrote. “Moreover, even if plaintiff proved an FMLA violation, he was not entitled to relief unless he showed harm. He received more than half of the full coaching supplement for the season and was not prejudiced by the reduction in the coaching supplement after he returned from leave. Thus, he could not prevail on his FMLA claim as a matter of law.”
Milton Harris v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville et al.; 6th Cir.; Nos. 08-6329/08-6330; 2/5/10
Attorneys of Record: (for appellant) Allison L. Bussell, METROPOLITAN DEPARTMENT OF LAW, Nashville, Tennessee. (for appellees) Douglas B. Janney III, LAW OFFICE, Nashville, Tennessee, Mac E. Robinson, Jr., ROBINSON & ROBINSON, Nashville, Tennessee, Joseph Howell Johnston, Nashville, Tennessee.
