Skip to main content

Poorly Drafted FMLA Policy Exposed Employer to Employee's FMLA Claim: Employers Beware


Tilley v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission - Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Terry Tilley worked for the Kalamazoo Road Commission back in 1993.  Beginning in 2011, Tilley began having a difficult working relationship with a superior.  Note that for an employee to qualify for FMLA leave, three basic steps must be satisfied:

  1. The employee has been employed by a covered employer for 12 months;
  2. The employee has worked 1,250 hours during the 12 month period before the requested leave began; and
  3. The employee works at a location where his employer employs 50 or more employees within a 75 mile radius of that location.

However, Kalamazoo had the following FMLA policy in place:  "Employees covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act are full time employees who have worked for the Road Commission and accumulated 1,250 work hours in the previous 12 months."  Notice how the third FMLA factor was not included in Kalamazoo's FMLA Policy?  That turned out to be a problem. 

Although Tilley was told by Kalamazoo that he was eligible for FMLA leave, he was subsequently terminated in August 2011.  Tilley brought suit on several grounds including a claim that Kalamazoo interfered with his right to FMLA protected leave and retaliated against him for taking such leave.  The District Court granted Kalamazoo's motion for summary judgment as to FMLA claim on the grounds that Tilley was not an "eligible employee" because Kalamazoo employed fewer than 50 employees at, or within 75 miles of Tilley's workplace at the time he sought FMLA leave. 

Holding:  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court as to Tilley's FMLA claim and held that a reasonable person in Tilley's position would have fairly believed he was protected by the FMLA because Kalamazoo's FMLA policy did not include the third prong.  Consequently, the Court of Appeals allowed Tilley to proceed on his FMLA claim and present his case before a jury, even though the protections of the FMLA otherwise would not have applied to him. 

Judgment:  As a result of Kalamazoo's FMLA policy only having two prongs (and failed to include the third FMLA prong), a reasonable person in Tilley's situation would have believed that he qualified for FMLA leave.  Subsequently, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the granting of summary judgment in favor of Kalamazoo on this claim and allowed Tilley to proceed with his FMLA claim before a jury.

The Takeaway:  Oh boy.  There are some cases I read that make me wonder what the employer was doing.  This is one of those cases!  Employers should take note of this ruling if for no other reason then to go and review their current FMLA policies they have in place and ensure there is no potential liability lying in wait.  It is much more cost effective to review FMLA policies now for any deficiencies and correct it, rather than get involved in a prolonged legal battle over an FMLA policy that failed to track the three required prongs of the FMLA.   

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Leitman

Date:  January 26, 2015

Opinion:  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0013p-06.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more