Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FMLA - Leaves of Absence - The Personnel Files
FMLA - Leaves of Absence - The Personnel Files
http://personnelfiles.wordpress.com/category/fmlaleaves-of-absence/
1 of 11
12/1/2013 11:56 AM
http://personnelfiles.wordpress.com/category/fmlaleaves-of-absence/
sufficient to create an inference of the causal link have uniformly held that the temporal proximity must be very close. [Citation]. Here, where the termination occurred less than forty-eight hours after notice of the protected activity was given, the timing of the two events could support the jurys finding of discrimination. In considering whether temporal proximity alone can support an inference of causation, we have rarely been faced with two events so close in time. [Ed. note - emphasis is mine]. The 8th Circuit also noted that Mrs. Marez was not hanging her hat entirely on temporal proximity, given her evidence that other employees had engaged in similar performance shortcomings without having been shown the door. The rather obvious lesson from this case: haste makes waste. Its probably a good idea to get legal advice before firing an employee mere days after the employee submits a request for FMLA leave (or some other protected activity). Posted in 8th Circuit, FMLA/Leaves of Absence, Retaliation, Temporal Proximity
This employee, named Ballato, had been on an approved leave, but had recently received a poor performance review. While on leave, Ballato sent emails that Comcasts HR department found to be threatening. So, Comcast disabled Ballatos email access and his facility badge. Before his email access had been cut off, Ballato had emailed his supervisor asking if he still had a job. The response: You are still employed by Comcast and we look forward to your return. Ballato was scheduled to work the following day. His supervisors tried calling Ballato twice, but he refused to answer (and later claimed that he was afraid that they were calling to fire him). Instead, Ballato called in to Comcasts Resource Center instead, saying that he wanted FMLA leave, but the person he spoke to could not find Ballato in his attendance system and suggested that Ballato call his supervisor, but Ballato did not do that. Instead, he drove to the facility itself, but when his badge wouldnt work, he gave up and went home. The next day (on which Ballato was also scheduled to work) he called an HR Manager at Comcast and left a voicemail message, stating that he had spoken with a lawyer, and told Comcast to cease and desist all
2 of 11
12/1/2013 11:56 AM
http://personnelfiles.wordpress.com/category/fmlaleaves-of-absence/
communication with me but did not give the HR Manager any contact information for this lawyer. Ballato then blew off his next two shifts, and Comcast determined that he had abandoned his job as a result. The 8th Circuit agreed with Comcast, rejecting the employees claim that Comcast had interfered with his FMLA rights: Even assuming Comcast interfered with Ballatos FMLA rights on June 5 [the day he called Comcast's "Resource Center"], Ballato still had the responsibility to attempt to request his intermittent FMLA leave, show up for his shift, or contact Comcast in some fashion to resolve any confusion as to his status before the shift started. Comcast could still consider Ballato to have voluntarily resigned for any other series of three consecutive shifts, not including June 5, where Ballato did not call in or show up for work. By not showing up or contacting Comcast for his shifts on June 8, 9, and 10, Ballatos failure to act served as a resignation of his employment under Comcasts attendance policy. Finally, Phan noted the attendance system of the Resource Center is completely separate from the human resources system and no evidence exists in the record that the decision makers involved with Ballatos termination had knowledge of Ballatos wish to take FMLA leave on June 5. Seems simple enough. The lesson: if you want FMLA leave, and you are confused about whether or not your employer knows of your wish, dont just assume that they did. The case is Ballato v. Comcast Corp. Posted in 8th Circuit, FMLA/Leaves of Absence
3 of 11
12/1/2013 11:56 AM
http://personnelfiles.wordpress.com/category/fmlaleaves-of-absence/
The facts are a bit complex, but the long and short of it is that the company in question claimed to have switched to the rolling 12-month FMLA method internally, but never notified employees of this (though the company claimed that the union was aware of this change in its practice). The company then mistakenly approved Mr. Thoms FMLA leave through June 27, even though under a rolling 12-month calculation, that was two weeks too long. Mr. Thom initially claimed to be able to come back for light duty in May and full duty by June 13, but the company wouldnt let him return for light duty, so Mr. Thom remained home and his condition worsened. When he didnt return on June 13 which is when, on a rolling basis, his FMLA eligiblity would have expired the company started counting each following day as an unexcused absence, and eventually fired him on June 18. Had the company used the calendar year method of counting FMLA leave eligibility, Mr. Thoms eligiblity would not have expired until mid-July. The District Court held that this company violated the FMLA by interfering with the plaintiffs leave rights, awarding more than $100,000 in back wages, $99,000 in attorneys fees, and a modification of the Plaintiffs last day of employment to render him eligible for a full pension. As to the underlying FMLA violation, the Sixth Circuit affirmed in full. The Sixth Circuit found it significant and, ultimately, dispositive that the company never gave actual notice to Mr. Thom that the company used the rolling method of counting FMLA leave eligibility, and this omission, coupled with the companys failure to retract its earlier approval of the leave through June 27, were sufficient to hold it liable. The Sixth Circuit shot down the companys argument that Mr. Thom should have known that the company used the rolling method of tracking FMLA leave eligibility: American Standard now claims that it has always used the rolling method for calculating FMLA leave and that Thom [the plaintiff] should have known this fact. It further contends that because two key officers in Thoms union provided affidavits during the lawsuit stating that
4 of 11
12/1/2013 11:56 AM
http://personnelfiles.wordpress.com/category/fmlaleaves-of-absence/
American Standard historically maintained a policy of applying the rolling method, their knowledge is imputed to Thom through simple agency law. In rejecting American Standards constructive notice arguments, the district court concluded that an employer is required to take affirmative steps to inform employees of its selected method for calculating leave. [Citations]. We agree that employers should inform their employees in writing of which method they will use to calculate the FMLA leave year. This standard is consistent with the principles of fairness and general clarity, and applying it, American Standards notice to Thom fell decidedly short. Although American Standard did internally amend its FMLA leave policy in March 2005 to indicate that it would now calculate employee leave according to the rolling method, it did not give Thom actual notice of this changed policy or in any way tell him that his official leave date would expire earlier than June 27, the date the company had [previously, but erroneously] approved. Consequently, Thom was entitled to rely on the calendar method and the date of June 27 that the company had given in writing. Neither [the HR] nor anyone else from her department or elsewhere advised him of any change. [Ed. note - emphasis has been added] Even worse for this company, the Sixth Circuit also held that the District Court messed up by not doubling the plaintiffs damages. The doubling of damages is the rule in FMLA cases unless the employer proves that it acted in good faith with a reasonable believe that it was complying with a law. The Sixth Circuit concluded that there was no basis to believe that this particular company qualified for this type of exception: The June 27 date agreed to in writing by American Standard is completely inconsistent with the rolling method and with counsels present reliance on the rolling method as a justification for discharge. Pretextual reasons for discharge manufactured after the fact in order to justify an earlier wrong are not consistent with good faith. The rolling calendar pretext is an ostensible motive given after-the-fact as a cover for the real reason for firing this 36-year employee whatever those economic motives may have been. In this case, after-the-fact reliance on the rolling method of calculation should not grant American Standard immunity from liquidated damages, and the companys obdurate refusal to correct an obvious mistake that constituted a wrongful discharge of this 36-year employee reinforces the case for liquidated damages. [Ed. note - emphasis has been added]. Yikes! The case is Thom v. American Standard, Inc. Happy reading! Image: koratmember / freedigitalphotos.net Posted in 6th Circuit, FMLA/Leaves of Absence
5 of 11
12/1/2013 11:56 AM
http://personnelfiles.wordpress.com/category/fmlaleaves-of-absence/
If an employee claims that her employer retaliated against her for exercising protected rights under the FMLA, it is fairly well-established that courts must use the tripartite McDonnell Douglas test to decide the claim. In other words, the employee must prove a preliminary (prima facie) case of illegal activity, then employer raises its hand and offers a legitimate explanation for its action, and then the employee tries to shoot down that explanation as a contrivance.
I am oversimplifying a bit, since there are circumstances where the McDonnell Douglas test doesnt apply: such as, for example, the employee has the employment-law equivalent of a smoking gun so-called direct evidence of the employers unlawful behavior. But in most instances, McDonnell Douglas is the rule. But what if the employee claims that her employer interfered with her rights under the FMLA. For example, an employee might claim that her employer fired her in order to stop her from taking protected medical leave. Does the McDonnell Douglas test apply to that type of claim? Does the employers motivation matter at all, if the only real question is whether the employee got leave to which she was entitled?
The Sixth Circuit has answered those questions today in Donald v. Sybra, Inc. and, rather surprisingly, has held that yes, the employers motive does matter, even in an interference claim, and yes, you are supposed to use the McDonnell Douglas test to resolve that type of claim. But the Sixth Circuit did not sound very enthusiastic when reciting this conclusion: In Grace v. USCAR, 521 F.3d 655, 670 (6th Cir. 2008), this Court stated that, in an FMLA interference claim, an employer may prove it had a legitimate reason unrelated to the exercise of FMLA rights for terminating the employee. The Court went on to say that the plaintiff could rebut the employers reason by showing that the proffered reason had no basis in fact, did not motivate the termination, or was insufficient to warrant the termination. Id. The Court effectively adopted the McDonnell Douglas tripartite test without saying as much. Because [r]eported panel opinions are binding on subsequent panels, 6 Cir. R. 206(c), Grace requires the conclusion that the district court correctly applied McDonnell Douglas to both Donalds interference and retaliation claims. This does not appear to be a very ringing endorsement of the older Grace decision, and one wonders how the
6 of 11
12/1/2013 11:56 AM
http://personnelfiles.wordpress.com/category/fmlaleaves-of-absence/
Donald panel would have ruled had Grace not been laying around as a controlling earlier panel decision. (One also wonders whether an en banc Sixth Circuit might feel differently.) The Donald panel also noted that its decision creates a circuit rift with both the First and Seventh Circuits. Sigh. (Cant we all just get along?) The actual facts in the Donald case involve a fast food cashier who was terminated while on a medical leave after she was allegedly caught stealing from the till. The Sixth Circuit ultimately held that the District Court had correctly granted summary judgment on her FMLA claims. Image: Roland Darby, freedigitalphotos.net Posted in 6th Circuit, FMLA/Leaves of Absence
Yes, according to a new opinion from the 11th circuit. The court concluded that, if this type of situation was not protected, then a loophole might be created, where an employer foreseeing a need for FMLA leave down the road could take action against the employee in question before their protection kicked in. This, according to the Court, was unacceptable: Here, it is undisputed that Pereda, at the time she requested leave, was not eligible for FMLA protection because she had not worked the requisite hours and had not yet experienced a triggering event, the birth of her child. It is also undisputed that she would have been entitled to FMLA protection by the time she gave birth and began her requested leave.
7 of 11
12/1/2013 11:56 AM
http://personnelfiles.wordpress.com/category/fmlaleaves-of-absence/
*** Without protecting against preeligibility interference, a loophole is created whereby an employer has total freedom to terminate an employee before she can ever become eligible. Such a situation is contrary to the basic concept of the FMLA. Thus, this Court disagrees with the district court and finds that Pereda stated sufficient facts to establish prima facie claims for both FMLA interference and retaliation. The case is Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc. Image credit: Clare Bloomfield, freedigitalphotos.net Posted in 11th Circuit, FMLA/Leaves of Absence
8 of 11
12/1/2013 11:56 AM
http://personnelfiles.wordpress.com/category/fmlaleaves-of-absence/
7th Circuit: No Cause of Action under FMLA for "Exacerbating" a Medical Condition
Posted on September 6, 2011 by Jason Rossiter The 7th Circuit has held that there is no cause of action under the FMLA against an employer who harasses an employee returning from FMLA leave and thereby exacerbates his or her underlying medical condition. A plaintiff attempted such a claim in Breneisen v. Motorola, Inc., 7th Cir No 10-1982: Breneisen claims that Motorola harassed him when he returned from an approved leave of absence that because of that [harassment], his medical condition became exacerbated, and that because of that [exacerbation] he could no longer work. The 6th Circuit, in Edgar v. JAC Products, Inc., 443 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2006), had rejected the exacerbation theory of liability under the FMLA, and the 7th Circuit held in Breneisens case that the 6th Circuits analysis was entirely accurate:
9 of 11
12/1/2013 11:56 AM
http://personnelfiles.wordpress.com/category/fmlaleaves-of-absence/
We share the Sixth Circuits concerns about permitting recovery to an FMLA plaintiff on exacerbation grounds and adopt its holding that exacerbation is not a valid theory of liability under the FMLA. See Edgar, 443 F.3d at 516. Since stress can adversely affect many common ailments from which physically infirm employees suffer, granting relief on this basis would contravene the straightforward premise of the FMLAto protect employees from adverse actions by their employers during finite periods when short-term personal or family medical needs require it. When serious medical issues render an employee unable to work for longer than the twelve-week period contemplated under the statute, the FMLA no longer applies. This is true regardless of the cause of the infirmity Posted in 7th Circuit, fmla, FMLA/Leaves of Absence
12/1/2013 11:56 AM
http://personnelfiles.wordpress.com/category/fmlaleaves-of-absence/
11 of 11
12/1/2013 11:56 AM