June Cruz v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 23503, 10 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1770, 428 F.3d 1379 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee seeking FMLA leave to care for an adult child must provide the employer with sufficient information to indicate the child is 'incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability.' Merely informing an employer that an adult child is in labor and needs assistance is insufficient notice to trigger the employer's duty to inquire further about FMLA eligibility.
Facts:
- June Cruz, a cake decorator for Publix Super Markets, Inc. ('Publix'), learned her adult daughter in Colorado was pregnant.
- Publix initially approved Cruz's request for two weeks of unpaid, non-FMLA leave to be present for the birth of her grandchild.
- Cruz later informed her assistant manager that she might need to leave earlier than planned if her daughter went into labor early.
- On October 16, 2003, Cruz told her managers she needed to leave for Colorado the next day because she believed her daughter was in labor, her son-in-law had broken his collarbone, and her daughter needed her help.
- At no point during her conversations with management did Cruz state that her daughter was experiencing any medical complications with the pregnancy.
- Cruz arranged for her daughter's physician to send a letter to Publix, which stated that the son-in-law was unable to be a labor coach and the daughter felt she needed her mother's help, but did not mention any pregnancy complications.
- After her approved two weeks of leave expired, Cruz did not return to work.
- When Cruz called Publix two weeks later to ask about her schedule, she was informed she had been terminated for job abandonment.
Procedural Posture:
- June Cruz filed a complaint against Publix Super Markets, Inc. in federal district court.
- Cruz alleged that Publix interfered with her FMLA rights and retaliated against her for trying to exercise them.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Publix.
- The district court reasoned that Cruz had failed to provide sufficient notice to Publix that she was requesting leave for a potentially FMLA-qualifying reason.
- Cruz, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
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 employee provide sufficient notice to an employer for FMLA leave by stating that her adult daughter is in labor and needs assistance due to her husband's injury, without communicating that the daughter is suffering from any medical complications related to the pregnancy?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilson, J.
No. An employee fails to provide sufficient notice for FMLA leave when the information provided does not reasonably suggest a potentially FMLA-qualifying reason for the absence. Under the FMLA, leave to care for an adult child is only available if the child is 'incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability,' which requires a 'serious health condition' beyond a normal pregnancy. Cruz only informed Publix that her daughter was in labor and needed help because her son-in-law was injured; she never mentioned any pregnancy complications. This information described a normal childbirth situation, not a serious health condition, and was therefore insufficient to put Publix on notice of a potentially FMLA-qualifying event. The burden never shifted to Publix to inquire for more information because Cruz's initial notice was deficient.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the employee's initial burden of notice under the FMLA, particularly concerning leave for adult children. It establishes that the employer's duty to inquire about FMLA eligibility is not triggered until the employee provides information that reasonably suggests a 'serious health condition,' not just a difficult life event. The ruling places a distinct responsibility on the employee to communicate the medical nature of the leave request, thereby preventing employees from later claiming FMLA protection for a reason they never disclosed. This reinforces the principle that employers are not expected to be investigators and can rely on the information provided by the employee when assessing leave requests.
