No Specific Language is Required to Put Employer On Notice of Employee’s Intent to Exercise Its FMLA Rights
Waterman v. Paul G. White Interior Solutions - United States District Court, District of Maine
Facts: Jake Waterman (“Waterman”) worked for Paul G. White Interior Solutions (“White Interior Solutions”) as a floor finisher and installer beginning in August of 2015. Waterman’s father had several medical issues and in April of 2018, was instructed to return to the doctor for tests and treatment. Waterman shared information about his father’s health condition with his supervisor and two coworkers. Waterman missed work from April 9 to April 16 to help care for his father. On April 9, Waterman left a voicemail for his supervisor, pursuant to company policy. The next day, Waterman left a voicemail with a co-owner of White Interior Solutions, explaining his father’s condition. Neither voicemail was responded to.
On April 16, the co-owner sent Waterman a Facebook message to ask he were he was. The next day, Waterman responded, indicating his father was still in poor condition. The co-owner subsequently messaged Waterman and told him that he abandoned his job and was told not to return to White Interior Solutions‘ property.
Waterman subsequently filed suit against White Interior Solutions on the grounds that his former employer violated the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) when he was terminated. Thereafter, White Interior Solutions moved to dismiss the complaint.
Holding: In federal court, to survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” As readers might be aware, the FMLA entitles covered employee’s to take up to twelve weeks of leave per year for certain family and medical reasons, including to care for a parent. Employers are prohibited from interfering or retaliating against an employee that exercises FMLA rights.
Interference
The Court began its analysis by first looking at whether White Interior Solutions unlawfully interfered with Waterman’s right to take FMLA leave. In order to establish a prima facie case of interference, a claimant must show that 1) he was eligible for FMLA’s protections; 2) his employer was covered by the FMLA; 3) he was entitled to leave under the FMLA; 4) he gave his employer notice of his intent to take leave; and 5) his employer denied him FMLA benefits which he was entitled to use.
In this instance, the Court held that Waterman’s complaint did not allege that he forfeited FMLA protections because of White Interior Solutions‘ failure to inquire into FMLA eligibility or to provide Waterman with FMLA notices that he was entitled to receive. Instead, Waterman’s complaint alleged that White Interior Solutions terminated him for availing himself of FMLA protections when White Interior Solutions should have inquired further or notified hi, of his FMLA rights. As a result, the Court granted White Interior Solutions‘ motion to dismiss as to this part of Waterman’s claim.
Retaliation
In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a claimant must show that 1) he availed himself of a protected FMLA right; 2) he was adversely affected by an employment decision; and 3) there was a causal connection between his protected conduct and the adverse employment action.
In regard to whether Waterman availed himself of an FMLA right, the Court recognized that “when an employee seeks leave for the first time for a FMLA-qualifying reason, the employee need not expressly assert rights under the FMLA or even mention the FMLA. Waterman’s complaint alleged that he notified White Interior Solutions of intent to take FMLA leave when Waterman left a voicemail on April 9 and 10. Although it was unclear what the voicemails stated, the Court pointed out that because Waterman’s April 17 Facebook message indicated his father was still in poor condition, this could be evidence that Waterman expressed conveyed similar information in his two voicemails. These facts raised a plausible inference that Waterman had provided adequate notice of his intent to take FMLA leave.
As for whether a casual connection existed, a contextual inquiry is necessary. The fact that Waterman had started to miss work on April 9 and notified White Interior Solutions of his intent to take FMLA leave soon after, as noted above, and was terminated nine days later led the Court to find a “very close temporal proximity” existed. As a result, the Court denied White Interior Solutions‘ motion to dismiss as to this part of Waterman’s claim.
Judgment: The District Court dismissed a portion of the claimant’s FMLA claim on the grounds that he could not show his former employer interfered with his right to take FMLA leave but held that sufficient evidence existed to establish that the claimant might have been retaliated against for taking FMLA leave when his former employer terminated him shortly after being notified of the claimant’s intent to exercise his FMLA leave.
The Takeaway: I wanted to brief this case as a reminder to employers that while the FMLA does not require specific language be used by an employee to exercise their right to take FMLA leave, Courts will look at the entire picture to determine whether an employer has been put on notice. In this case, I think the Court got it right. Based upon what Waterman had plead in his complaint, there was at least some evidence that could lead a jury to determine that White Interior Solutions retaliated against Waterman once it became known that Waterman was exercising his FMLA rights to care for his father. Whether this is the conclusion that will be reached by a jury at trial, should it get to that point, is hard to say. However, given that a causal connection appeared to exist, there was enough in the complaint to deny White Interior Solutions‘ motion to dismiss as to this part of Waterman’s claim.
Majority Opinion Judge: Judge Levy
Date: November 5, 2019
Comments
Post a Comment