Krutzig v. Pulte Home Corp.
15 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1879, 602 F.3d 1231, 602 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer does not interfere with an employee's rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) if it terminates the employee for reasons unrelated to their request for leave. An employee can be dismissed, preventing them from commencing FMLA leave, if the employee would have been dismissed regardless of any request for leave.
Facts:
- In June 2007, Betsy Krutzig, a sales associate for Pulte Home Corporation, fell and injured her foot.
- In July 2007, Krutzig's supervisor, Janet Parsons, issued her two written warnings and placed her on a 30-day performance improvement plan.
- On Friday, August 17, 2007, Krutzig contacted a human resources representative, Jessica Hernandez-Parkman, to request FMLA leave for an upcoming foot surgery.
- Krutzig faxed a doctor-signed form to Hernandez-Parkman but was unable to get her direct supervisor's signature that day.
- Also on August 17, Krutzig met with a disgruntled customer, Donna Guerrieri, who then complained about Krutzig to a Vice President of Sales, Jill Hoffman.
- Hoffman discussed the customer complaint with Jeff Cooper, the Director of Sales.
- On Saturday, August 18, 2007, Cooper decided to terminate Krutzig's employment based on her performance issues and the recent customer complaint.
- On Monday, August 20, 2007, Cooper informed Krutzig that she had been terminated.
Procedural Posture:
- Betsy Krutzig filed a complaint against Pulte Home Corporation in a federal district court.
- Krutzig's complaint alleged claims of FMLA retaliation, FMLA interference, and ERISA interference.
- Pulte filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Pulte.
- Krutzig, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, with Pulte as the appellee.
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 or retaliate against an employee's rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by terminating them after they request leave, if the decision-maker was unaware of the FMLA request at the time the termination decision was made?
Opinions:
Majority - Albritton, District Judge
No. An employer does not violate the FMLA by terminating an employee if the decision would have been made regardless of the employee's request for leave. For a retaliation claim to succeed, a plaintiff must show a causal connection between the protected activity (requesting leave) and the adverse action (termination), which requires evidence that the decision-maker was aware of the protected activity. Here, Krutzig failed to rebut Pulte's evidence that the decision-makers, Cooper and Hoffman, were unaware of her FMLA request when they decided to terminate her on August 18. Temporal proximity alone is insufficient to establish causation against unrebutted evidence that the decision-maker lacked knowledge. Similarly, for the interference claim, the court adopts the reasoning of other circuits that the right to commence FMLA leave is not absolute. An employee may be dismissed for legitimate reasons unrelated to an FMLA request, even if it prevents the employee from taking leave, because the FMLA does not provide greater protection against termination for unrelated reasons than the employee had before making the request. Since the decision-makers were unaware of Krutzig's request, her termination was, as a matter of law, for reasons other than her requested leave.
Analysis:
This decision aligns the Eleventh Circuit with other circuits by establishing that the FMLA right to commence leave is not absolute. It solidifies the principle that the FMLA is not a shield against legitimate, pre-existing grounds for termination. The ruling underscores the critical importance of the decision-maker's knowledge in both retaliation and interference claims, making it significantly harder for plaintiffs to succeed where an employer can provide credible evidence that the individuals making the termination decision were unaware of the FMLA request. This holding protects employers from liability when a termination decision, based on legitimate business reasons, coincidentally occurs close in time to an employee's FMLA request.
