Scobey v. Nucor Steel-Arkansas
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19094, 15 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 340, 580 F. 3d 781 (2009)
Rule of Law:
An employee seeking unforeseeable FMLA leave must provide an employer with sufficient notice to suggest that their health condition could be serious and may qualify for FMLA protection; generalized statements of distress or intoxication are insufficient to trigger the employer's duty to inquire further, especially when coupled with a history of unexcused absences and shifting explanations.
Facts:
- Talmadge Scobey began working at Nucor Steel in 1998 and worked as a 'ladle man' from 1999 to 2005, a demanding and dangerous position.
- Nucor's attendance policy permitted termination for an employee's fourth occasion of an unexcused absence, and Scobey had two prior unexcused absences in February 2005.
- On April 9, 2005, Scobey called supervisor Randy Blakemore to report his ex-wife's father had passed away and asked about taking time off for the funeral, and separately asked lead man Paul Seratt if he could take April 13 off.
- On April 10, Scobey did not come to work and called Seratt while intoxicated, stating he was 'through and done with us,' causing Seratt to express concern over his mental state, which Seratt then relayed to Blakemore.
- On April 11, Scobey told supervisor Kirby Teeter he had suffered a 'nervous breakdown' and hung up, with Teeter noting Scobey's slurred speech and believing him to be intoxicated and making excuses; Scobey also told shift manager Steve Segars he would not be back for a while due to personal problems and his former father-in-law's death.
- Scobey missed work on April 12 and April 13, and on April 14, told Blakemore he could not recall the previous four days and 'wanted some help,' being advised to contact HR Manager Kellie Crain.
- On April 15, Scobey visited a physician who diagnosed hypertension, but did not mention depression or alcoholism, nor did the physician state Scobey needed time off work.
- On April 19, Scobey informed HR Manager Crain he had an alcohol problem and was depressed, leading to an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) appointment the next day; Nucor subsequently designated Scobey's inpatient treatment for alcoholism and depression as paid leave, not FMLA leave.
Procedural Posture:
- Talmadge Scobey sued Nucor Steel in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, alleging claims of interference and discriminatory retaliation under the FMLA.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Nucor Steel, dismissing both of Scobey's FMLA claims.
- Scobey appealed the district court's dismissal on summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 employee provide sufficient notice of a serious health condition to trigger an employer's obligations under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when, during a period of unexcused absences, they make vague statements about a 'nervous breakdown' and personal problems while intoxicated, without further explanation or medical documentation regarding a qualifying condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepherd, Circuit Judge
No, an employee does not provide sufficient notice of a serious health condition to trigger an employer's FMLA obligations when, during a period of unexcused absences, they make vague statements about a 'nervous breakdown' and personal problems while intoxicated, without further explanation or medical documentation. The court held that Talmadge Scobey failed to provide adequate notice to Nucor Steel that he had a 'serious health condition' rendering him 'unable to work' during his four unexcused absences from April 10-13, 2005. While the FMLA does not require an employee to explicitly assert FMLA rights, they must provide information suggesting that their health condition could be serious, distinguishing it from ordinary sick days or malingering. Scobey's initial request for time off to attend a funeral (not FMLA-protected), his calls while intoxicated stating intent to terminate employment, and his 'nervous breakdown' comment on April 11, were deemed insufficient. These statements, particularly within the context of his previous unexcused absences, drunken behavior, and shifting explanations, did not adequately apprise Nucor of any possible FMLA obligations. The court declined to adopt a 'constructive notice' doctrine, noting that a regulatory basis for it was nullified by changes in Department of Labor regulations. Furthermore, absences caused by the use of alcohol are not FMLA-protected, only absences for treatment of alcoholism are. Since Scobey failed to provide adequate and timely notice for his initial absences, his FMLA interference claim failed, and consequently, his retaliation claim also failed because Nucor demoted him for unexcused absences not protected by the FMLA, not for exercising FMLA rights.
Dissenting - Bye, Circuit Judge
Yes, a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether Scobey provided sufficient notice of a serious health condition, specifically severe depression, to Nucor. The dissenting opinion argues that Scobey's statements that he was having a 'nervous breakdown' on April 11, along with other comments like being 'through,' 'fcked up,' and having 'issues,' were sufficient to put Nucor on notice of a possible serious mental health condition. These statements led Nucor employees (Seratt and Blakemore) to express concern for Scobey's mental state and even potential suicide. A 'nervous breakdown' implies a disabling mental or emotional disorder requiring treatment. The dissent contends that this notice was timely, starting on April 10 and becoming sufficient by April 11. Once Scobey raised the possibility of incapacity due to mental problems, it became incumbent upon Nucor to require substantiation, such as a medical certification, to differentiate the causes of his absence, rather than summarily concluding his absences were unprotected. The dissent acknowledged that absences for alcohol use* are not protected, but argued that the severe depression aspect warranted further inquiry.
Analysis:
This case underscores the critical importance of proper notice in FMLA claims, particularly for unforeseeable leave related to mental health or substance abuse. It clarifies that generalized statements of distress or physical symptoms of intoxication, without further context suggesting a serious health condition, do not automatically trigger an employer's FMLA obligations. The decision places a significant burden on employees to provide enough information to reasonably apprise the employer of a potential FMLA-qualifying condition. Future cases may rely on this precedent to scrutinize the specificity and timeliness of employee notice, especially in situations where an employee's behavior might be ambiguous or related to conditions like addiction, which have nuanced FMLA protections.
