Skip to main content

FMLA Leave Claim Can Proceed After Employee Threatened By Co-Worker & Then Fired For Dealing With the Related Stress


Barber v. Von Roll U.S.A., Inc. - United States District Court Northern District of New York


Facts:  Charles Barber ("Barber") worked at Von Roll U.S.A., Inc. ("Von Roll") as a quality control technician from 2004 until December 2013.  In 2011, one of Barber's coworkers, Scott Gilligan ("Gilligan") began exhibiting erratic and threatening behavior, including threats of physical violence towards his coworkers.  On several occasions, Gilligan threatened to slit a co-worker's throat, stab a co-worker in the neck with scissors.  After a co-worker complained to human resources of Gilligan's behavior, Gilligan stated "[I]f he gets me fired, I'm coming in here guns-a-blazing."  Von Roll took no action against Gilligan.

In May 2013, Gilligan threatened to strike Barber in the head with a baseball bat.  In September 2013, Gilligan threatened to knockout a co-worker in front of a supervisor.  Even though Barber and the co-worker reported the threat to human resources, Von Roll took not action.  In October 2013, Gilligan brought ammunition to the office and displayed it on his desk.  Gilligan had inscribed Charles Barber's initials on one of the bullets.  When Barber reported the incident to human resources, he was told he was not in danger and Von Roll would not take any action.

After the ammunition incident, Barber began to experience severe anxiety, panic, and fear for his safety.   Barber subsequently filed a police report and Gilligan was fired.  Eventhough Barber called into work on each day he was absent and provided medical documentation, he received a written warning for taking leave.  Upon requesting FMLA leave, Barber was told he did not quality and instead was given a short term disability form.  After Barber returned to the office, he learned Gilligan would be coming back.  Although Barber's doctor advised him to remain off work and Barber requested time off to deal with his medical condition, Von Roll fired him in December 2013 for missing work without a satisfactory explanation.

Barber subsequently brought a range of claims against Von Roll.  For the purposes of this note, I want to focus on the FMLA claim against Von Roll. 

Holding:  As for Barber's claim that Von Roll violated the FMLA by interfering with his attempts to exercise his rights under the Act, the Court noted that it is unlawful for an employer to "interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any rights provided" by the FMLA.  While Von Roll did not dispute that Barber was an eligible employee and Von Roll qualified as an employer under the Act, the dispute turned on whether Barber was entitled to take FMLA leave and whether Barber gave notice of his intention to take FMLA leave.

In this instance, Barber was found to have been entitled to FMLA leave based upon a serious health condition that involved continuing treatment by a healthcare provider.  The facts showed that Barber was treated by his doctor twice within thirty days of the first incapacity he experienced.  As for the issue over whether Barber gave Von Roll notice of his intention to take FMLA leave, the Court found that Barber satisfied this requirement.  The critical question when examining this prong is "whether information imparted to the employer is sufficient to reasonably apprise it of the employee's request to take time off for a serious health condition."  The facts showed that when Barber submitted the short term disability form, he indicated he was diagnosed with anxiety and would require further treatment.  As well, Barber apparently spoke to a human resources representative about his requested FMLA leave and called into work on each day he was absent and referenced his anxiety and stress.

Judgment:  Based upon the facts presented, the District Court found that Von Roll's motion to dismiss Barber's FMLA claim should be denied.  Barber had presented sufficient evidence to show that Von Roll violated the FMLA by denying Barber leave to deal with a medical related condition based upon the harassing conduct of a co-worker. 

The Takeaway:  Talk about an interesting set of facts, right?  I think if any of us were in Barber's shoes, we would be experiencing a great deal of stress based upon Gilligan's repeated conduct.  I think the important thing to focus on here is the fact that employers should not be so quick to "ignore" potential FMLA issues.  It goes without saying that Von Roll should have taken steps to deal with Gilligan's conduct before it continued to escalate.  Notwithstanding Von Roll's failure to act, employers need to be very careful when dealing with an employee's request to take FMLA leave.  Let this case serve as an example of how an FMLA request can be easily ignored and then come back to bite the employer.   

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge D'Agostino

Date:  August 25, 2015

Opinion:  https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyndce/1:2014cv00907/99048/22/0.pdf?ts=1440589343

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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more