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
One of the most challenging aspects of managing a workforce is
policing FMLA abuse. One employer
attempted to address the problem by hiring a private investigator
to follow suspected FMLA abusers. When the investigator reported
that an employee was abusing his leave, the employee was fired. The
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined in Scruggs
v. Carrier Corporation that the employer's "honest
suspicion" was enough to allow the employer to terminate the
employee and to shield it from FMLA liability. Carrier granted
intermittent FMLA leave to Daryl Scruggs so that he could care for
his elderly mother, who resided in a nursing home. According to Mr.
Scruggs, the purpose of the leave was to take his mother to
doctors' appointments. On July 24, 2007, Mr. Scruggs informed
Carrier that he needed to take the entire day off for FMLA leave.
An investigator stationed himself outside Mr. Scruggs's home,
but during the entire day, Mr. Scruggs's car never left his
driveway. Mr. Scruggs himself was seen only once, when he emerged
from his home to pick up his mail and immediately returned
inside.
Because the purpose of the leave was for Mr. Scruggs to take his
mother to the doctor, Carrier was understandably upset when it
appeared that Mr. Scruggs never left his house. Carrier gave Mr.
Scruggs the chance to explain himself. At first, Mr. Scruggs could
not explain himself. Eventually, he developed a convoluted story
where he left his house via the backdoor, rode to his mother's
house with his brother, and returned via a neighbor's house.
Even then, there were still holes in Mr. Scruggs's story,
including that he could not remember the neighbor's name when
asked. Because Carrier did not believe Mr. Scruggs's account,
Carrier terminated his employment.
Mr. Scruggs sued, claiming that his FMLA rights were violated.
The Seventh Circuit determined that Carrier did not interfere with
Mr. Scruggs's FMLA rights or retaliate against him. Typically,
when the parties to a lawsuit disagree about what happened, a trial
is required to resolve the dispute. Here, however, the court
determined that even if Mr. Scruggs's account was accurate, it
made no difference. The key was that Carrier had an "honest
suspicion" that Mr. Scruggs had abused his FMLA leave. Because
Carrier's investigation was evidence of abuse, and because Mr.
Scruggs's own account was contradictory and incomplete, the
court held that Carrier had an honest suspicion that Mr. Scruggs
was abusing his leave. Because Carrier had an honest suspicion, it
could not be liable for an FMLA violation.
While the use of a private investigator worked out well for the
employer in this case, and FMLA abuse is a serious problem, there
are a number of serious considerations that employers must make
before hiring investigators to track employees. First, while the
law in the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) seems
clear enough, other state and federal courts may not be so
deferential to employer surveillance of employees. Second, an
employer must seriously evaluate the impact of surveillance on its
workforce. Perhaps employees will be resentful of the idea that
their employer is going to such great lengths to watch them. On the
other hand, hardworking employees may appreciate the fact that the
employer is not letting other employees shirk their
responsibilities and abuse the system. Finally, cost must be a
factor: reputable private investigators can be very expensive, so
the employer must make an initial determination of whether an
investigator can root out enough abuse to justify the expense.
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
