Keene v. Rinaldi
7 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1358, 127 F. Supp. 2d 770, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19534 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Individual supervisors of a public agency are not considered "employers" under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and, therefore, cannot be held personally liable in their individual capacities for violations of the Act.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was an employee of the United States Postal Service, a public agency.
- Plaintiff suffered from several serious health conditions, including sleep apnea, high blood pressure, and chronic dislocation of his right shoulder.
- Plaintiff attempted to take time off from work due to his health conditions, as permitted by the FMLA.
- Plaintiff's supervisors at the Postal Service, including defendants Rinaldi and Ellis, allegedly refused his requests for leave.
- Plaintiff also alleged that his supervisors retaliated against him for attempting to take FMLA leave.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina against three U.S. Postal Service employees.
- The complaint alleged violations of the FMLA and sought compensatory, punitive, and emotional distress damages.
- Defendants filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's demand for punitive and emotional distress damages under the FMLA.
- Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss the FMLA claims against them in their individual capacities for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The district court referred the pending motions to a United States Magistrate Judge for a recommendation.
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 the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) permit an employee of a public agency to sue their individual supervisors in their personal capacity for alleged violations of the Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Magistrate Judge Eliason
No. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) does not impose individual liability on supervisors at public agencies. The court's reasoning is based on a structural analysis of the FMLA's definition of 'employer' in 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4). The statute defines private employers and includes a provision for individual liability for persons 'acting in the interest of an employer' in subsections (i) and (ii). However, 'public agency' is defined in a separate and subsequent subsection, (iii). The court infers from this structure that Congress intended the individual liability provision to apply only to private employers, not to public agencies. This interpretation is supported by Department of Labor regulations, which mention potential liability for 'corporate officers' but are silent on individuals working for public agencies. Furthermore, the purpose of individual liability is to prevent private employers from using corporate structures to evade responsibility, a concern not present with public agencies, where the government entity itself is always available to provide a remedy.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of liability under the FMLA by creating a clear distinction between supervisors in the private and public sectors. By shielding public agency supervisors from personal liability, the ruling reinforces the principle that suits for FMLA violations in the public sector must be brought against the agency itself, not its individual employees. This interpretation provides significant protection for government managers and affects how FMLA claims against public entities are litigated. The case contributes to a then-existing split among federal district courts on this issue, siding with the Eleventh Circuit's conclusion in Wascura v. Carver that public officials cannot be held individually liable under the FMLA.
