Paula Crawford appealed the District court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Chase Bank on her FMLA interference and retaliation claims. She began her career in banking working for a predecessor bank which became Chase Bank in 1995. While still at Chase in November, 2003, she also began working full-time with Safe Auto, an insurance firm, and with other employees, was held hostage at gunpoint by a coworker. As a result, she was treated for PTSD, anxiety and depression, and continued to suffer from these conditions. In September, 2005, she was promoted by Chase to Project Manager, and remained stationed in Columbus, Ohio. In this position, she could apply legal knowledge she had acquired during her studies in law school, including Regulation AB review reviewing contract servicing agreements, and ensured that Chase complied with the servicing agreements.

Beginning in summer 2007, a series of email conversations took place among high-level managers that eventually resulted in Crawford’s position being transferred to Phoenix, and Crawford being reassigned to the ostensibly lesser position upon her return from FMLA leave. She had been on FMLA leave from December 10, 2007, through February 19, 2008. Her Project Manager I job was transferred to Phoenix, and she was assigned to Quality Analyst II. In this new position, Crawford testified, she was required to perform more clerical duties, and did not require the same level of legal expertise, she would report to a former peer, and her opportunities for career advancement from this position were limited. Chase maintained that Crawford’s salary, grade level, work hours, work location, and bonus potential did not change, and that the job was equivalent. 

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

2. In what ways does the plaintiff allege that her new position (Quality Analyst II) differed from her former position (Project Manger I)? Why does it matter whether the two positions are “equivalent?”

3. In this decision, the Sixth Circuit joins the majority of other federal appeals courts in applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Burlington Northern to FMLA retaliation cases. What does that mean? Why is it significant in this case?

4. Evaluate the dissenting judge’s arguments. In your view, was this case correctly decided? Why or why not?