FMLA guarantee of reinstatement is never absolute

When an employee returns from FMLA leave, that employee is entitled to be reinstated to the same or equivalent position he or she held prior to the leave. As Winterhalter v. Dykhuis Farms (6th Cir. 7/23/12) [pdf] illustrates, however, that right to reinstatement is never guaranteed. 

Dykhuis Farms terminated Winterhalter’s employment on the day that Winterhalter was scheduled to return from FMLA leave, allegedly due to economic hardship and Winterhalter’s status as the highest-paid and lowest-performing of the workers in his unit. The court concluded that despite the fact that he was fired on the day he returned from leave, his employer neither retaliated against her nor interfered with her job restoration rights under the statute. The farm came forward with well-documented evidence that its economic hardship and its need to take "drastic measures to improve its financial performance,” motivated the termination, not Winterhalter's FMLA leave.

As the 6th Circuit correctly pointed out, the FMLA's reinstatement "provisions do not create a greater right to reinstatement or protection against termination than the employee would receive if he had not taken FMLA leave. Therefore, an employer may dismiss an employee who has taken FMLA leave, but only if the employer has a legitimate reason unrelated to the exercise of FMLA rights for engaging in the challenged conduct.”

Notifying an employee of a termination the day he or she returns from FMLA leave is a risky proposition. It will likely draw a lawsuit. The key to winning the lawsuit is having a legitimate and documented reason to support the termination. In this case, it was economic hardship. In others, it could be the discovery of serious performance deficiencies. Despite the FMLA's job restoration guarantee, you can terminate an employee who is out on an FMLA leave. You just have a really good reason, and you have to be able to back it up.

 

Don’t estop believing: employer backs itself into FMLA claim for ineligible employee

I’ve written before about the FMLA’s unique rules for when an employer is covered and when an employee becomes eligible to take leave.

• The FMLA covers any private employer that has 50 or more employees on the payroll during 20 or more calendar workweeks in either the current or the preceding calendar year.
• An employee becomes eligible to take leave under the FMLA once the employee has worked for at least 12 non-consecutive months, worked 1,250 hours during the prior 12 month period, and works at a location where the employer has 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius.

What happens, however, if a non-covered employer mistakenly grants FMLA leave to an employee, or if a covered employer mistaken grants FMLA to an ineligible employee? If the employer catches its mistake and fires the employee for taking unexcused absences, can the employee sue for retaliation under the FMLA? According to the court in Medley v. County of Montgomery (E.D. Pa. 7/16/12), the answer is yes.

Medley requested intermittent leave because of her son’s serious health conditions. Even though she had worked less than 1,250 hours during the prior 12 months, county officials told her that she qualified for FMLA leave and provided her with various FMLA forms. Once she started taking the intermittent leave, however, the county began to write her up. Within days, the county fired her for taking unauthorized leaves.

The court concluded that Medley could pursue her FMLA retaliation claim under an estoppel theory:

“The doctrine of equitable estoppel is used to prevent ‘one party from taking unfair advantage of another when, through false language or conduct, the person to be estopped has induced another person to act in a certain way, with the result that the other person has been injured in some way.’” …

In the context of the FMLA, “equitable estoppel may, in an appropriate factual scenario, provide a means of redress for employees who detrimentally rely on their employers' misrepresentations about FMLA eligibility.” … “[A]n employer who without intent to deceive makes a definite but erroneous representation to his employee that she is an ‘eligible employee’ and entitled to leave under the FMLA, and has reason to believe that the employee will rely upon it, may be estopped to assert a defense of non-coverage” if the employee reasonably relied on the misrepresentation to her detriment.

This case underscores the importance of training those who manage your FMLA program on the law’s special coverage and eligibility requirements. These employees must intrinsically understand the numerical thresholds and how to apply them. As the Medley case illustrates, you could be bound to mistakes (computational or otherwise), which could prove costly.

[Hat tip: Employment Law Matters]

Bag of Bones = age discrimination

Stephen King’s Bag of Bones is about an author who moves to a lakeside house to confront his nightmare in the wake of his pregnant wife’s death. EEOC v. Hawaii Healthcare Professionals, Inc., concerns a nightmare of a different kind.

In 2008, Hawaii Healthcare’s owner, Carolyn Frutoz-De Harne, ordered the firing of then 54-year-old Debra Moreno. Frutoz-De Harne proceeded with the termination over the protest of the facility manager, who hired and supervised Moreno, and who thought she was a thorough and efficient worker. In ordering the termination, Frutoz-De Harne allegedly told the manager that Moreno “looks old,” “sounds old on the telephone,” and is “like a bag of bones.” After the termination, the manager reported the ageist comments to Moreno, who in turn filed an age discrimination charge with the EEOC. The agency subsequently filed a lawsuit on Moreno’s behalf.

Last week, a federal court ordered Hawaii Healthcare Professionals to pay Moreno $193,236 for the discrimination. According to the EEOC:

Age should never be a factor when evaluating an employee or job applicant’s worth. What makes this case especially appalling is the flagrant disregard for a worker’s abilities, coupled with disparaging ageist remarks and thinking.

Procedurally, this case is unique because the district court entered a default judgment against Hawaii Healthcare after it failed to respond to the EEOC’s amended complaint. Even if this case proceeded to trial, however, Hawaii Healthcare would have faced an uphill battle. An executive terminating an employee over a manager’s objections and after referring to the fired employee as “bag of bones”? Sounds to me like a tough age case to defend.

WIRTW #234 (the “have it your way” edition

Recently, Reddit listed the nine menu items that fast food workers say you should never eat at one of their restaurants. I think number 10 should be anything with lettuce on it from a Mayfield Heights, Ohio, Burger King. Earlier this week, the franchise owner fired three employees who believed they had anonymously posted the following photo of one of them using bins of lettuce as shoes:

Here’s the full story, as reported by WKYC:

The lesson for employers and employees? Online photos are not really anonymous. They almost always contain something called “metadata,” which tells when and where the photo was taken. In this instance, the metadata enabled the franchise to track down, and fire, the offending employee. In fact, according to Mashable, it took all of 20 minutes for someone to decipher the metadata, post the address of the store, contact the news, and inform Burger King’s corporate website.

Here’s the rest of what I read this week:

Discrimination

• Is obesity a disability under the new ADA? Probably. — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• Court Ruling Highlights Effect of Obesity on Employers — from Thompson’s HR Compliance Expert
• 7 ways to avoid trouble with the EEOC — from Inside Counsel
• What is Discrimination? — from ERC Insights Blog
• Solving the Smelly Problem of Fragrance-Induced Disabilities — from Washington Workplace Law
• Cocktail Waitresses, Discrimination, and the Entertainer Exemption — from Stephanie Thomas’s The Proactive Employer Blog
• How Not To Retaliate — from Troutman Sanders HR Law Matters
• Marriage and the Workplace - Not Always a Perfect Match — from Jason Shinn’s Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• Sleeping at Work Probably Won't Help Plaintiff's Discrimination Claim — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Discovery of Plaintiff's Social-Networking Profile — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Facebook Posts From An Employee’s Termination Meeting? Plan for It — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Can liking a Facebook status protect an employee from termination? — from Employment Law Bits
• Social Media Madness in the Modern Workplace — from i-Sight Investigation Software Blog
• The Cost of Social Media Distractions in the Workplace — from Minnesota Labor & Employment Law Blog
• Personal vs. Professional on the Job: Where Do We Draw the Line? — from TLNT
• Ten Apps Topping Enterprise Blacklists — from Social Media Strategies Summit Blog
• Workplace “Bring Your Own Device” Policies Save Money Now, But May Risk Future Litigation — from ABA Journal Daily News
• BYOD Party! — from The Personnel Files

HR & Employee Relations

• Why Women Still Can’t Have It All — from The Atlantic
• New Yahoo CEO Is Six Months Pregnant [Insert Gasp] — from Fistful of Talent
• Doesn’t Marissa Mayer have a Non-Compete??? — from Trade Secrets & Non-Compete Blog
• Why companies must stop office bullying — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Lifeguard fired for saving a drowning swimmer? Company policy gone bad… — from Warren & Associates Blog

Wage & Hour

• Unpaid Internships May Prove to be Meal Ticket After All… — from Wage & Hour Defense Blog
• Hearst Must Face Class Action by Interns — from Joe’s HR and Benefits Blog
• Using “Rolling” Method to Calculate FMLA Leave Almost Always the Best Choice for Employers — from Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights
• To minimize FMLA lawsuits, hire slow and fire fast (before the FMLA request) — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Visit to doctor for prescription refill is not “treatment” for purposes of FMLA — from Employment Law Matters

Labor Relations

• Reinventing Unions — from Workplace Prof Blog
• The NLRB Continues to Push the Envelope — from Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
• Top Six Illegal Policies In Your Employee Handbook — from Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home

820,000 reasons to have a social media policy

Yesterday, I read an article entitled, Companies Should Think Twice Before Creating Social Media Policy, which argued that “companies who scrutinize their employees’ personal accounts and social media activity may be doing more harm than good.” Yet, companies that ignore employees’ social media activities squarely put themselves at risk.

For example, consider Espinoza v. County of Orange (Calif. Ct. App. 2/9/12). The plaintiff, Ralph Espinoza, a deputy juvenile corrections officer, was born without fingers on his right hand. Co-workers started an anonymous blog, where they referred to Espinoza as the “one handed bandit” and the “rat claw.” The blog became increasingly offensive, culminating in posts such as, “Fuck you one hand bandit! You can shove that claw of yours up your ass!” and “hey rat claw, wrote a poem 4 you: Roses are red; Violets are blue; I fucked your mother in the ass; And she had you!!!!!!!!!”

Espinoza learned of the blog from a sympathetic coworker. Espinoza complained to management, who did little other than asking employees to put the blog to rest. Indeed, the blog continued unabated for eight weeks while management investigated.

A jury awarded Espinoza $820,000 for the harassment.

The court of appeals upheld the verdict, concluding that an employer can be liable for off-duty harassment conducted by employees:

Defendant seems to be taking the position all of the complained of conduct occurred outside the workplace and summarily claims there was no evidence “a current employee” posted any of the comments…. But even on the merits the argument fails….

Employees accessed the blog on workplace computers as revealed by defendant’s own investigation. The postings referred both directly and indirectly to plaintiff, who was specifically named in at least some of them, and the postings discussed work-related issues. It was reasonable for the jury to infer the derogatory blogs were made by coworkers.

There are many risks to employers from the un-monitored use of social media by employees. Harassment, such as that seen in the Espinoza case is just the tip of the iceberg. Employers also need to worry about retaliation, defamation, and breaches of confidentiality, not to mention harm to the corporate reputation. For these reasons, employers need social media policies to establish the rules of road for employees, who do not understand that they can be held responsible for their off-duty, online activities.

[Hat tip: Technology for HR Blog]

Disability services provider sued for, what else, disability discrimination

I’m four years older than my brother. For this reason, growing up I would sometimes get punished for things for which my brother was let off the hook. The reasoning? You should know better. And, I’m sad to say that now that I have two kids of my own, I have found myself repeating this refrain to my older child. The sins of the father, I guess.

Apparently, “you should know better” carries over to the world of employment law. The EEOC has filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against Pace Solano, a California disability services provider. According to the EEOC:

After interviewing for a position to teach developmentally disabled adults … Katrina Holly was immediately offered a job and asked to take a pre-employment physical exam. Holly successfully completed all of the tests and disclosed that she had partial paralysis in one hand to the examiner, so that he would have her complete medical information. Despite written verification from its own doctor that Holly was cleared to do the job, Pace Solano withdrew its job offer due to her hand. When she asked the company to reconsider, the response was, “Your injury makes you a liability; you don’t want to get hurt any more than you already are, do you?”

I agree wholeheartedly with these words from EEOC District Director Michael Baldonado: “While we admire the work that Pace Solano performs for the community, there is simply no excuse for rejecting an applicant because of a disability which in no way impacts her performance.” A lawsuit is simply a set of unproven allegations. If, however, there is any whiff of truth in this lawsuit, Pace Solano should settle this case and train its people so that this public relations nightmare is not repeated.

The “cat’s paw” strikes back

In Staub v. Proctor Hosp., the Supreme Court passed judgment on the “cat’s paw” theory of liability in discrimination cases—an employer’s liability for the discriminatory animus of an employee who played no role in the decision, but nevertheless exerted some degree of influence over the ultimate decision maker. The Staub Court concluded that an employer can be liable for the discriminatory animus of a non-decision making supervisor who intends to cause, and does proximately cause, an adverse employment action.

In Chattman v. Toho Tenax Am. (6th Cir. 7/13/12) [pdf], the 6th Circuit applied Staub to reverse summary judgment in a race discrimination case. Chattman alleged that his employer’s HR director, Tullock, who recommended his termination for horseplay and fabricated that other supervisors supported the decision, was racially biased.

In support of this allegation of race-based animus, Chattman pointed to three separate incidents:

1. Tullock told a “joke” that O.J. Simpson was innocent and that Nicole Brown was killed by their son because O.J. Simpson responded to a question from his son by answering “go axe your mother.”
2. Tullock responded to another employee’s complaint that her son had gotten into trouble at school for fighting by saying “you know what my grandmother always says about boys scuffling? That’s how the nigger graveyard got full.”
3. Tullock commented about then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama by saying “well you better look close at Obama’s running mate because Americans won’t allow a nigger president.”

Even though Tullock was not the decision maker, the court concluded that a jury question existed under the cat’s paw theory:

Chattman has shown that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Tullock intended that Chattman be disciplined…. There can be little doubt that Tullock desired Chattman’s termination when he made his recommendation and fabricated the agreement of the other supervisors….

Chattman alleges that Tullock knew that white employees engaged in horseplay but never reported any of those incidents to upper management, instead reporting the only incident on record of a black employee engaging in horseplay.

Tullock was the Human Resources manager, and he actively inserted himself in the decisionmaking process. He both misinformed and selectively informed … about the incident. A reasonable factfinder could find Tullock’s actions were a proximate cause of the adverse decisions.

When the Supreme Court decided Staub last year, I cautioned that it upped the ante for employers in discrimination cases:

The Court’s holding hinges on ideals such as “intent” and “proximate cause,” which are almost always fact-based inquiries. Because it is very difficult for an employer to win summary judgment on these issues, the Court has turned nearly every “cat’s paw” case into a jury case—an expensive proposition for employers.

Chattman does nothing to dissuade me of my earlier opinion.

What is the practical takeaway for employers? You better know who you have managing and supervising your employees. Companies do not make personnel decisions in a vacuum. Executives often rely on the front-line managers and supervisors for advice on who and when to discipline or fire. Yet, under Staub, businesses are on the hook for the discriminatory animus of these managers and supervisors, even if they have nothing to do with the ultimate decision. You never want a bigot managing your employees. The cat’s paw, however, provides employers added incentive to purge them from your managerial ranks.