We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
In order to be granted a leave of absence under the Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA), an employee first must fulfill certain
eligibility requirements, including having worked for the employer
for at least 12 months, and having worked for at least 1250 hours
within the prior calendar year. Individuals who do not reach those
initial thresholds typically do not qualify for FMLA leave.
However, on July 17, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denied a motion to dismiss the claim of a
county nursing assistant who was fired because she took FMLA leave
to care for her son, finding that the employer was estopped from
arguing that the FMLA discrimination claim should be dismissed
based on ineligibility under the leave law, because county
officials had led the plaintiff to believe that she was qualified
to take such leave. Medley v. Montgomery County, EDPA, No.
2:12-cv-01995, July 17, 2012.
Amy Medley was employed by Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, as a
nursing assistant. Medley's son has serious health conditions,
including Asperger's Syndrome, developmental delay, and anxiety
disorder. Although she had worked for less than 1250 hours during
the prior 12 month period, Medley requested and was granted
intermittent leave to care for her son. County officials told
Medley that she qualified for FMLA leave, and asked her to fill out
various County FMLA forms. She also was provided with documents
that stated that she was eligible for "family care" leave
after three continuous months of employment.
However, as Medley began to take intermittent leave, she was
written up for her absences. When she raised the issue with a
County "H.R. Official" on April 19, 2011, she was
dissuaded from filing a grievance and was told not to worry,
because "nothing was going to be done to her." The next
day, Medley's employment was terminated, and she was told she
was fired because of leave she exercised on April 17, 2011, once of
the absences that Medley believed was covered by her
"FMLA" leave.
Medley filed a lawsuit in federal court, including claims of
interference with her FMLA rights and of retaliation under that
Act. The County filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint, arguing
that Medley's claims should be dismissed because it was
undisputed that Medley did not satisfy this basic prerequisite for
an FMLA claim. In response, Medley argued that because she was told
that she was eligible for FMLA leave, the doctrine of equitable
estoppel should now preclude the County from asserting that her
FMLA claims fail because she was not eligible.
Upon review, the district court determined that Medley's
claim of interference with her FMLA rights failed, simply because
Medley possessed no actual FMLA right with which the County could
have interfered. However, in order to support her claim of
retaliation, Medley simply had to show that she was treated
adversely because she took FMLA leave. In reviewing that claim, the
court determined that actual entitlement to FMLA leave was not an
essential element of the claim. Instead, the court quoted a
decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which
held that "[A]n employer who without intent to deceive makes a
definite but erroneous representation to his employee that she is .
. . entitled to leave under the FMLA, and has reason to believe
that the employee will rely upon it, may be estopped to assert a
defense of non-coverage" if the employee reasonably relied on
the misrepresentation to her detriment. While the district court
refused to allow Medley's interference claim, it allowed her
retaliation claim to go forward under that analysis.
Although the difference between the district court's
analysis of Medley's interference claim and its analysis of her
retaliation claim is subtle, it is worth understanding. While the
court refused to retroactively endow Medley with actual FMLA rights
because of her employer's misinformation about her eligibility,
it also refused to allow that employer to take advantage of the
mistake by firing Medley for what she believed to be FMLA-related
absences.
Although this decision could be appealed to the Third Circuit,
the district court's message is clear: once an employer grants
FMLA leave to an individual, even if that allowance is based upon a
miscalculation of eligibility requirements, the employer cannot
then take adverse action based upon an absence associated with the
faux FMLA leave. To do so may create liability for under the FMLA
for a claim of retaliation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A female employee traveling for her employer met a "friend" and at her motel room with him became "injured whilst engaging in sexual intercourse when a glass light fitting above the bed was pulled from its mount and fell on her."
The Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health & Human Services have issued new guidance on the content requirements for health plan summaries of benefits and coverage ("SBCs").
Groping, insulting, and threatening female employees has just resulted in an award by a federal jury in Tampa of $20.2 million in damages in an action which alleged a hostile work environment.
Issues After The Election
