Fisher v. Rizzo Brothers Painting Contractors, Inc.
403 F.Supp.2d 593, 2005 WL 3338719, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31901 (2005)
Rule of Law:
An employer's failure to properly inform an eligible employee of their substantive rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), including the total amount of available leave and the right to reinstatement, can constitute an unlawful interference with FMLA rights. This duty exists even if the employee initially expressed an inability to take unpaid leave due to financial constraints, and the determination of whether an entity is an 'employer' for FMLA purposes is based on the number of employees on the payroll, not daily attendance.
Facts:
- Plaintiff began working for Defendant, a family-owned commercial/industrial painting business, as an administrative assistant in February 2000.
- In Spring 2002, Plaintiff informed her direct supervisor and the company's owners, Pete and Paul Rizzo, that she was pregnant and intended to work until her due date of January 2, 2003.
- In Fall 2002, Plaintiff experienced pregnancy complications, leading her physician, Dr. Stephen Hensley, to advise her to take a leave of absence from her job.
- On October 18, 2002, Plaintiff met with her supervisors to discuss leave options, was informed that any leave would be unpaid, but claims she was never told it was FMLA leave or that it carried an automatic right to reinstatement.
- On October 19, 2002, Plaintiff met with her supervisors again and asked to be 'laid off' so she could collect unemployment compensation during her leave, which they agreed to, and she claims she was assured she could return to her job after the baby's birth.
- Plaintiff gave birth to her daughter on December 31, 2002, and underwent gall bladder surgery on March 10, 2003, with plans to return to work a week later.
- On February 12, 2003, Plaintiff contacted Pete Rizzo to inform him she planned to return to work on March 17, 2003, but Rizzo told her that business was too slow and he was unable to 're-hire' her.
- The following month, Defendant hired Judith Leidy to perform clerical duties.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge alleging discrimination based upon sex on May 20, 2003.
- Plaintiff received a 'right to sue' letter from the EEOC on August 6, 2003.
- Plaintiff filed the instant action in federal district court on November 3, 2003, alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), and a related state statute, later amending her complaint to add a common law claim of promissory estoppel.
- Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims.
- Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on Defendant’s counterclaims of fraud, unjust enrichment, and frivolous action.
- The District Court permitted Plaintiff to file supplemental briefing limited to the issue of whether Defendant was an 'employer' for FMLA purposes.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer interfere with an employee's FMLA rights when it fails to inform her of her rights to unpaid leave and reinstatement, despite the employee initially stating she could not afford unpaid leave and ultimately returning to work after the maximum FMLA period?
Opinions:
Majority - BUNNING, District Judge
No, an employer does not automatically avoid FMLA interference liability merely because an employee expressed financial inability to take unpaid leave or returned to work beyond the statutory maximum if the employer failed to properly advise her of her substantive FMLA rights. The court denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the FMLA claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether Defendant properly advised Plaintiff of her FMLA rights. The court reasoned that an interference claim under FMLA centers on whether the employer provided the employee with the entitlements set forth in the FMLA, such as a twelve-week leave or reinstatement. Even if an employee indicates they cannot afford unpaid leave, they are still entitled to be informed of their right to reinstatement. The court emphasized that the remedy for an FMLA violation is tailored to the harm suffered, and it was inappropriate to strictly apply the Sixth Circuit's holding in Cehrs v. Northeast Ohio Alzheimer’s Research Center (that an employee unable to return within twelve weeks has no remedy) in this case, given that Plaintiff alleged she was not advised of the total available leave and it was unclear if she could have returned earlier had she known her rights. The court also clarified that an 'employer' under FMLA is determined by employees on the payroll, not daily attendance, and found Plaintiff was an 'eligible employee' because she informed Defendant of her condition and need for leave before her employment relationship ended.
Analysis:
This case underscores an employer's critical affirmative duty to properly inform employees of their FMLA rights, including the right to reinstatement, even in circumstances where the employee expresses initial financial difficulties with unpaid leave. The decision clarifies that the 'prejudice' requirement for FMLA relief is nuanced, suggesting that an employee who was not fully informed of their rights might not be strictly bound by their stated inability to take leave or by returning beyond the statutory twelve-week period. This ruling reinforces that FMLA protections are not easily waived or negated by an employee's lack of information, placing a significant burden on employers to ensure comprehensive FMLA notification. It also confirms the counting method for 'eligible employer' status based on payroll records.
