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

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

Comments

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,...

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

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. ...