Ruble v. American River Transp. Co.
799 F.Supp.2d 1017 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee provides sufficient notice to trigger an employer's duties under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when they provide enough information for the employer to reasonably determine that the FMLA may apply to the leave request, which is a fact-specific inquiry under the totality of the circumstances and is typically a question for the jury.
Facts:
- Jack D. Ruble, II, was an assistant engineer for American River Transportation Company (ARTCO) on a 'live-on' vessel.
- Due to significant family strife, Ruble's grandmother, Elma J. Ruble, raised him primarily and, for a number of years, exclusively.
- On March 29, 2008, Ruble boarded his vessel and informed the captain and chief engineer that his grandmother was ill and he might need to take leave.
- On April 10, 2008, Ruble learned his grandmother had terminal cancer and was not expected to live more than a week.
- Ruble informed Personnel Manager Michelle Wittman that his grandmother was ill, that he needed to 'go see her before she died because she had taken care of him.'
- ARTCO informed Ruble that a replacement could arrive on Monday, April 14, and Ruble agreed that this was the latest he could wait.
- On Monday, April 14, ARTCO told Ruble his replacement would not arrive until the next day, Tuesday, April 15.
- Believing he had given sufficient notice for a time-sensitive emergency, Ruble left the vessel without authorization on April 14.
Procedural Posture:
- Jack D. Ruble, II sued his former employer, American River Transportation Company, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
- Ruble's complaint alleged unlawful termination for attempting to exercise his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
- Defendant American River Transportation Company filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Ruble was not entitled to FMLA leave and failed to provide adequate notice.
- The parties consented to the exercise of plenary authority by a United States Magistrate Judge.
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 to trigger protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by stating that their seriously ill grandmother 'took care of' them and that they needed 'to go see' her before she died?
Opinions:
Majority - Magistrate Judge David D. Noce
Yes. An employee provides sufficient notice under the FMLA when the information provided is enough to put the employer on notice that the employee may be in need of FMLA leave. Grandparents may qualify as a 'parent' under the FMLA if they stood 'in loco parentis' to the employee as a child. A factual dispute exists as to whether Ruble's statement that his grandmother 'took care of [him]' was sufficient to inform ARTCO of a potential in loco parentis relationship. Similarly, while the FMLA does not protect 'mere visitation,' the regulations broadly define 'to care for' to include providing psychological comfort and reassurance. Ruble's statements that he needed 'to see' his terminally ill grandmother in the hospital could be interpreted as a request to provide such care. Because the adequacy of an employee's notice is typically a jury question based on the totality of the circumstances, summary judgment is inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the low threshold for an employee to provide sufficient notice to trigger an employer's duties under the FMLA. The decision emphasizes that an employee need not use specific legal terms like 'FMLA' or 'in loco parentis' but must only provide enough factual information for the employer to reasonably suspect the leave may be covered. By denying summary judgment, the court reinforces that the adequacy of notice is a fact-intensive inquiry, shifting the burden to the employer to seek clarification once put on notice, rather than allowing the employer to deny leave based on ambiguity. This protects employees who may not be aware of the specific legal requirements for FMLA leave.
