Neel v. Mid-Atlantic of Fairfield, LLC
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42807, 778 F. Supp. 2d 593, 17 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1367 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), an employer may not deny reinstatement to a designated "key employee" unless it first provides specific, written notice that unambiguously states its intent to deny restoration, explains the basis for its finding of substantial and grievous economic injury, and offers the employee a reasonable opportunity to return to work.
Facts:
- Elizabeth Neel was employed by Mid-Atlantic of Fairfield as a licensed nursing home administrator.
- In March 2009, Neel sustained a neck injury and subsequently took intermittent leave for treatment.
- On August 28, 2009, Neel's supervisor, Jeff Grillo, expressed concern about her time off but still awarded her a performance bonus.
- A car accident on September 8, 2009, exacerbated Neel's neck injury, leading her physician to recommend an extended leave for a medical procedure.
- Mid-Atlantic approved Neel's request for FMLA leave, which began on October 8, 2009, and provided her a form stating she was a 'key employee' and that restoration 'may be denied'.
- While Neel was on leave, Mid-Atlantic began searching for her replacement.
- On November 25, 2009, Neel informed Mid-Atlantic that she expected to return to work in mid-December.
- On December 1, Mid-Atlantic sent Neel a letter stating that a successor had been identified, and on December 11, it formally notified her that her position had been filled and her employment was terminated.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Elizabeth Neel filed a lawsuit against Defendant Mid-Atlantic of Fairfield in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
- Neel's complaint alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Maryland public policy.
- Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment with the district court.
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 violate the FMLA by failing to reinstate a 'key employee' when its notice only stated that reinstatement 'may be denied' and did not explain the basis for its claim of substantial economic injury or provide a reasonable time for the employee to return to work?
Opinions:
Majority - Bredar, J.
Yes, an employer violates the FMLA by failing to reinstate a 'key employee' without providing proper notice. The FMLA's 'key employee' exemption is not effective unless the employer complies with the strict notice requirements outlined in 29 C.F.R. § 825.219(b). Mid-Atlantic provided an initial notice stating restoration 'may be denied,' which only satisfies subsection (a) of the regulation. It failed to provide the required second notice under subsection (b), which must state a definite 'intent to deny' restoration, explain the basis for the finding of 'substantial and grievous economic injury,' and give the employee a 'reasonable time in which to return to work.' Because Mid-Atlantic's notice was deficient, it was not entitled to the key employee exemption and interfered with Neel's right to reinstatement. Furthermore, the deposition testimony of Neel's supervisor, who admitted she would not have been terminated had she not taken FMLA leave, constitutes direct evidence of unlawful retaliation under 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2).
Analysis:
This decision underscores the critical importance of strict procedural compliance for employers seeking to use the FMLA's 'key employee' exemption. It clarifies that the general, preliminary notice provided on a standard WH-381 form is insufficient on its own to deny reinstatement. Employers must issue a second, highly specific notice that clearly articulates the definite intent to deny restoration and the economic rationale behind it, thereby giving the employee a meaningful chance to assess their options. The case serves as a strong precedent against employers using the exemption as a loophole, reinforcing that any failure to meet these precise notification requirements will result in the loss of the exemption and potential liability for FMLA interference and retaliation.
Unlock the full brief for Neel v. Mid-Atlantic of Fairfield, LLC