Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America
2016 WL 1055742, 817 F.3d 415 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), an employer unlawfully interferes with an employee's rights when it fails to responsively answer questions and provide clear guidance regarding medical certification. A supervisor who exercises sufficient control over an employee's FMLA rights can be held individually liable as an 'employer' under the FMLA's 'economic reality' test.
Facts:
- On June 6, 2012, Cathleen Graziadio, a Payroll Administrator at the Culinary Institute of America (CIA), took leave to care for her son, Vincent, who was hospitalized with Type I diabetes.
- Graziadio returned to work on June 18, 2012.
- On June 27, 2012, Graziadio's second son, T.J., fractured his leg, requiring surgery, and Graziadio again notified her supervisor, Loreen Gardella, that she needed immediate leave.
- In early July, Graziadio communicated her need for a reduced, three-day work week to care for T.J. and repeatedly asked what documentation CIA required, but she received no response.
- On July 17, 2012, Shaynan Garrioch, CIA's Director of Human Resources, sent Graziadio a letter stating her FMLA paperwork for both sons was deficient and gave her seven days to correct it, without providing the specific forms Graziadio had requested.
- Throughout late July, Graziadio sent multiple emails seeking clarification, which Garrioch did not answer; Garrioch rejected a doctor's note for T.J. and then refused to communicate further via email, insisting on an in-person meeting that was never scheduled.
- After Graziadio retained an attorney in August, CIA's counsel continued to insist her paperwork was deficient and that she would not be returned to work.
- On September 11, 2012, Garrioch sent Graziadio a letter terminating her employment for allegedly abandoning her position.
Procedural Posture:
- Cathleen Graziadio filed a complaint against the Culinary Institute of America (CIA), Shaynan Garrioch, and Loreen Gardella in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The complaint alleged FMLA interference, FMLA retaliation, and associational discrimination under the ADA.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court (a court of first instance) granted the defendants' motion in full, dismissing all of Graziadio's claims.
- Graziadio, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with CIA and Garrioch as appellees.
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's failure to responsively answer an employee's questions regarding FMLA certification requirements, followed by the employee's termination for alleged job abandonment, create a triable issue of fact for FMLA interference and retaliation, and can an HR director who controlled the employee's leave be held individually liable?
Opinions:
Majority - Calabresi, J.
Yes. An employer’s failure to provide clear guidance and responsive answers regarding FMLA certification can constitute unlawful interference, and terminating an employee for alleged job abandonment under such circumstances is sufficient evidence of pretext to proceed on a retaliation claim. The court held that a jury could reasonably find that CIA interfered with Graziadio's FMLA rights by providing vague and confusing instructions about medical certifications, misstating deadlines, and failing to responsively answer her repeated questions, as required by FMLA regulations. This conduct could excuse Graziadio's obligation to provide a perfect certification. Furthermore, the court found that CIA's proffered reason for termination—job abandonment—was weak and potentially pretextual, given Graziadio's numerous attempts to return to work. The close proximity in time between her protected leave and her termination, along with other evidence, created an inference of retaliatory intent sufficient to survive summary judgment. Finally, the court adopted the 'economic reality' test to hold that Garrioch could be individually liable as an 'employer' because she exercised substantial control over Graziadio's FMLA rights, including determining the adequacy of her paperwork, controlling her ability to return to work, and ultimately communicating her termination.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that an employer's obligations under the FMLA are not passive; they must actively and clearly communicate with employees about their rights and responsibilities. The ruling establishes that employers in the Second Circuit cannot use bureaucratic runarounds or deliberate unresponsiveness regarding certification to frustrate an employee's FMLA rights. It formally adopts the FLSA's 'economic reality' test for determining individual FMLA liability, broadening potential liability to include managers who exercise control over an employee's FMLA leave, even without final termination authority. This holding makes it more difficult for employers to obtain summary judgment in retaliation cases where their stated reason for termination, such as job abandonment, is contradicted by evidence of the employee's persistent efforts to comply and return to work.
