Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog
Employers need to be vigilant to ensure they are not overlooking employee circumstances that potentially implicate the Family and Medical Leave Act. Employers’ failure to recognize that an employee has a qualifying need for intermittent FMLA leave is a common pitfall that can entrap unwary employers. Whether you are an employer or an employee, you should consult an experienced FMLA interference lawyer if you have questions about whether a scenario implicates a need for intermittent leave.
An FMLA case that recently went before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals puts this issue of correctly identifying FMLA-qualifying needs in the spotlight.
The employee, T.J., worked as a freight handler for a shipping and transportation company. His job duties included loading and unloading trucks. His employer demanded that freight handlers like T.J. check with a supervisor before clocking out each day to see if other trucks needed loading or unloading. If so, the employer expected the handlers to work overtime until all trucks were loaded/unloaded.
In 2020, the handler learned that his wife was pregnant. He asked about FMLA leave, but a manager told him he was “moving too fast” and that he should inquire about FMLA after the child’s birth.
Three months later, the couple learned that the wife’s pregnancy was “high risk.” Her high-risk status meant she could not work or drive, and that she needed her husband to provide as much of her care as possible.
Twice during the summer of 2020, the handler left work at his regularly scheduled time, refusing to work overtime because he needed to get home to help his wife, whose pregnancy was becoming increasingly problematic. After the second incident, the employer declared that T.J. had engaged in “job abandonment” and fired him.
The handler sued for FMLA retaliation and interference. As the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals explained, these claims differ: interference involves an employer who “denied or otherwise interfered with” the employee’s rights under the FMLA. In contrast, retaliation involves discrimination against an employee for engaging in an activity protected by the FMLA. The court also noted that an employer may be liable for interference even if it violated the statute unintentionally, because “the employer’s motives are irrelevant.”
The law allows employers to defend against claims of interference by demonstrating that “it would have terminated the employee regardless of [his] request for or use of FMLA leave.”
The appeals court concluded that the facts that the handler alleged made out a viable case of interference. The trial court had ruled for the employer, but the appeals court concluded that the trial judge’s focus was too narrow. While it was true, as the trial court stated, that the handler could not show that the employer’s actions prejudiced him by preventing him from driving his wife to doctor’s appointments or caring for her in an emergency, that was not the critical aspect to be analyzed, as the employer did not fire T.J. for missing work to take his wife to appointments.
Instead, the prejudice the handler endured was getting fired “as a direct result of leaving after completing his shift to care for his wife.” The employer had notice of this reason and that it was a qualifying one under the FMLA. Had the employer afforded T.J. intermittent FMLA leave, he could have used it on the days he left without working overtime, thereby avoiding termination for job abandonment.
That, according to the court, was the prejudice the handler suffered and upon which he could continue pursuing his interference case.
Do you have questions or concerns about the FMLA? Whether you are an employer or an employee, the knowledgeable Atlanta FMLA interference attorneys at Parks, Chesin & Walbert can help. Our team has extensive experience assisting both employees and employers with this intricate, often nuanced area of the law. Contact us today through this website or at 404-873-8048 to schedule a consultation at no cost to you.