Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog
In FMLA matters, things that may seem self-evident are not always so. For example, as a recent federal appeals case demonstrated, even if an employer granted FMLA leave to an employee, that employee may not necessarily have been entitled to the leave. If they were not, then they cannot pursue a case of retaliation or interference. If you have questions about entitlement to FMLA leave or the required elements of a retaliation or interference case, be sure to get knowledgeable answers by talking to an experienced Atlanta FMLA lawyer.
L.H., the employee, worked as an investigator for a university in Texas, tasked with “investigating allegations of harassment, discrimination, sexual misconduct and retaliation.” Due to mental health issues, the investigator requested FMLA leave from February 17, 2023, to May 1, 2023. On the day the investigator returned to work, her supervisor and the university’s head of HR met with her to tell her that the university was terminating her employment.
The investigator subsequently sued for interference with FMLA rights and retaliation. According to the investigator, the university fired her in retaliation for taking leave. According to the university, it fired the investigator due to performance problems it discovered while she was on leave.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, thereby ending the case before it proceeded to trial. The key to the employer’s success is a reminder of a very significant point, which is that just because an employee took FMLA leave does not necessarily mean that they were entitled to FMLA leave, and, if they were not, then the employer cannot, as a matter of law, be liable for FMLA interference or retaliation.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling. The appeals court, in rejecting the investigator’s claims, noted that an employee can be entitled to FMLA leave if she has “a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position.”
A key fact that tilted the case in favor of the employer was that both the investigator and her doctor testified that at no point was L.H. unable to do the duties of an investigator. Based on those facts alone, L.H. could not possibly qualify as “entitled to” FMLA leave, and, because she was not entitled, her employer could not possibly be liable for retaliation or interference.
No Detrimental Reliance
The standard that the courts laid out is the general rule. There is an exception. The law potentially can bar an employer from using non-entitlement to FMLA leave as a defense in a retaliation/interference case, the appeals court clarified, “if the employer represented to the employee that she was eligible, had reason to believe the employee would rely on that representation, and the employee reasonably relied on that representation to her detriment.”
In L.H.’s case, she had evidence that the university represented to her that she was eligible for leave, but her case lacked sufficient proof that she relied on that representation to her detriment. To the contrary, the investigator testified that she would have taken the full amount of leave regardless of whether or not the university approved it. That testimony thoroughly undermined L.H.’s assertion that she relied on the university’s approval, and the failure of that assertion ultimately unraveled her case as a whole.
For any questions you encounter related to the FMLA, get the sound advice and diligent advocacy you need by contacting Parks, Chesin & Walbert’s team of Atlanta FMLA law attorneys. Our attorneys have experience in representing clients facing a wide array of FMLA issues, so we have the knowledge to provide you with the aid you need. Contact us through this website or at 404-873-8048 to schedule a consultation today and receive the reliable answers you need to your questions about the FMLA.