Martin v. Brevard County Public Schools
543 F.3d 1261 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may interfere with an employee's FMLA right to reinstatement if it terminates the employee for failing to complete a performance improvement plan that was interrupted by the FMLA leave, unless the employer can prove the employee would have been terminated regardless of the leave.
Facts:
- Brevard County Public Schools employed Anthony G. Martin as a payroll supervisor on an annual contract basis.
- Martin lived with and provided substantial financial support for his adult daughter, Brittany, and her infant daughter, Hannah.
- In early 2004, Brittany, a single mother and Army Reservist, was informed her unit was scheduled for overseas deployment.
- On April 19, 2004, Martin's supervisor, Michael Degutis, placed him on a performance improvement plan that was set to conclude on June 1, 2004.
- On April 29, 2004, Martin requested 12 weeks of FMLA leave to care for Hannah, asserting he stood 'in loco parentis' due to Brittany's impending deployment.
- Degutis approved the leave but warned Martin on May 3 that if the leave prevented him from completing the improvement plan, his contract would not be renewed.
- Martin began his FMLA leave on May 7. Brittany's deployment was ultimately cancelled, but Martin continued to provide daily care for Hannah while Brittany attended school and weekend drills.
- On June 21, 2004, while Martin was still on leave, the School District notified him that his contract would not be renewed because he had failed to complete his improvement plan.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony G. Martin sued the Brevard County Public Schools in the U.S. District Court (trial court) for FMLA interference and retaliation.
- The School District filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the case.
- The district court granted the School District's motion for summary judgment.
- Martin, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision 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 employer interfere with or retaliate against an employee's FMLA rights by terminating the employee for failing to complete a performance improvement plan when the failure was caused by the employee taking FMLA leave?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the employer interfered with or retaliated against the employee's FMLA rights. An employer cannot deny reinstatement to an employee on FMLA leave for failing to complete a performance improvement plan when the leave itself caused the failure, unless the employer can prove it would have terminated the employee regardless. The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude Martin stood in loco parentis to his granddaughter because he provided substantial financial support and day-to-day care. On the interference claim, the court held that while the right to reinstatement is not absolute, the employer bears the burden of proving the employee would have been discharged even without taking leave. Here, it was speculative whether Martin would have completed the plan, so summary judgment was improper. On the retaliation claim, the close temporal proximity between Martin's leave and his termination was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the School District's stated reason—failure to complete the plan—was pretextual.
Concurring - Kravitch, J.
Yes, the employer interfered with the employee's FMLA rights because the reason for termination was directly caused by the leave. The concurrence argues that a performance improvement plan is analogous to other job qualifications mentioned in FMLA regulations, for which an employee must be given a reasonable opportunity to fulfill upon returning to work. The School District's reason for termination—failure to complete the improvement plan—was not unrelated to the FMLA leave; rather, the leave directly caused Martin's inability to complete the plan. Therefore, by terminating him for this reason, the School District interfered with his FMLA rights as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly protects employees who are on performance improvement plans when they need to take FMLA leave. It prevents employers from creating a 'catch-22' where taking protected leave automatically leads to a failure to meet performance metrics, resulting in termination. The ruling reinforces that the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was truly unrelated to the FMLA leave. It also provides a broad, functional definition of 'in loco parentis,' recognizing that a grandparent providing substantial financial and daily care can qualify for FMLA protection, expanding the scope of family caregivers covered by the act.
Unlock the full brief for Martin v. Brevard County Public Schools