The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled that whether an employee failed to follow her employer's procedures for requesting leave was due to "unusual circumstances" was a factual matter for the jury to decide. That factual question would determine whether the employee could sue the employer for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The case is Crispell v. FCA, No. 23-1114 (June 18, 2024).
FMLA Basics
The FMLA permits eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave, which may be intermittent, for various reasons. Leave under the FMLA is available for one's serious health condition, to care for a seriously ill or injured spouse or dependent, for the birth, adoption, or placement of a child, or to deal with "exigencies" related to their spouse's military deployment. FMLA also provides up to 26 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a spouse with a military service-related injury or illness.
Under the FMLA, the employer can require the employee to follow its usual procedures for requesting leave. An employee must give 30 days' notice for foreseeable leave or, if unforeseeable, as much notice as is practicable. An employer can also discipline an employee for failing to follow those procedures, which is not considered to interfere with an employee's FMLA rights, absent an employee's showing of "unusual circumstances."
Facts in Crispell v. FCA
In this case, the employee was diagnosed with major depression, mood swings, and anxiety, which are serious health conditions qualifying her for FMLA. Her psychiatrist submitted yearly reports stating that her conditions would result in a need for intermittent leave.
The employer maintained a mandatory Call-In Procedure, which required a phone call at least 30 minutes before the employee's start time, with exceptions for "unusual circumstances." The policy further stated that failure to report tardies or absences according to the policy was grounds for discipline, including discharge. The employee repeatedly failed to follow the Call-In Procedure without adequate explanation, which resulted in her discharge.
Legal Proceedings in Crispell v. FCA
Crispell filed suit against her employer in federal district court, alleging various FMLA violations and that her failure to follow the Call-In Procedure was due to "unusual circumstances." The district court dismissed Crispell's suit, ruling that Crispell had failed to prove that the employer's denial of her FMLA leave was a pretext for unlawful retaliation.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the employer's Call-In Procedure was permissible under the FMLA since it allowed exceptions to the policy for "unusual circumstances." However, the Court found that the district court erred in determining whether Crispell had submitted sufficient evidence of "unusual circumstances." Since this issue was a material dispute of fact, the Court ruled, a jury had to decide the FMLA interference claim. As a result, the Court remanded the case to the district court for trial by jury.
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.