Failure to Notify Employee of FMLA Rights Revives Interference Claim

A Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) interference claim should move forward where an employer failed to inform its employee of his rights under the statute, despite being aware of his wife’s high-risk pregnancy that required his care, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined in an unpublished opinion.

A full-time freight handler for FedEx for several years, Teryl James loaded and unloaded trailers on the dock from 5:30 p.m. until 2:30 a.m. the next day. Before clocking out for his shift, James was required to check with the dock supervisor to make sure no other trailers requiring loading or unloading. If trailers still needed to be unloaded, freight handlers were expected to work overtime.

In March 2020, James informed his managers that his wife was pregnant with their first child. He asked one of the managers about the FMLA in the event he needed it for his wife’s pregnancy but was told he was “moving too fast” and that he would not need to inquire about leave until after the child was born.

James updated his supervisors in June 2020 when his wife’s doctor told her that the pregnancy was high risk, and she would need James to care for her as much as possible, as she could no longer work or drive.

Although he told his managers that there would be times when he needed to leave early or miss days to care for his wife, no one informed James of his rights under the FMLA.

Later that month, James informed his supervisor that he needed to leave at the end of his shift to ensure his wife was okay and drive her to an appointment. When James was leaving work for the day, his supervisor stopped him and told him he had to work overtime.

James responded that he needed to leave and an incident report was placed in his file, stating that he “refused” to unload a trailer.

A few days later, James was receiving updates from his wife throughout his shift about the pain she was experiencing. He clocked out and began to leave the worksite. The supervisor stopped him, and James explained that his wife was having health complications related to the pregnancy and that he needed to leave. The supervisor informed James that, if he left, it would be considered job abandonment.

James left. The next day, the doctors determined that the pregnancy was in such a dangerous state that the baby had to be delivered immediately, two and a half months early.

After the baby was born, James applied for and received paid parental leave. When he submitted FMLA paperwork for additional leave, however, he was informed that he was under investigation for job abandonment. James was terminated.

He sued, asserting interference and retaliation in violation of the FMLA. FedEx moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the motion.

The federal appellate panel reversed in part.

An eligible employee is not required to mention the FMLA when giving notice, the Eleventh Circuit noted, and once an employer knows that an employee’s leave may qualify for FMLA, the employer is obligated to evaluate whether the requested absence does, in fact, qualify for FMLA protection. The employer must also provide notice to the employee of their eligibility for and rights under the FMLA within five business days, absent extenuating circumstances.

The district court faulted James for not showing that FedEx’s actions prevented him from driving his wife to doctor’s appointments or caring for her in an emergency, but clarified that James argued the prejudice he suffered was not the missed appointments—it was being fired from his job as a direct result of leaving after completing his shift to care for his wife.

“James offers enough evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his wife needed care, a qualifying reason for leave under the FMLA, and that FedEx had notice,” the court wrote. “Had James used his FMLA leave to which he was entitled, to get home to his wife rather than working overtime, he would not have been fired for failing to work overtime.”

While FedEx countered that James was fired for failing to check in with a supervisor and not for refusing to work overtime, the court found that the employer’s own communications undermined the argument, and an issue of fact remained.

“[A] reasonable jury could find that James was reprimanded, and ultimately fired, not for failing to check in, but for refusing to work overtime and complete ‘additional assignments,’” the court said. “Had James used the intermittent FMLA leave that he was entitled to so that he could care for his wife’s pregnancy complications, he would not have been fired for refusing to work overtime.”

The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of FedEx on James’ retaliation claim, however, holding that James failed to show a causal connection between his FMLA-protected activity and the adverse employment actions.

To read the opinion in James v. FedEx Freight, Inc., click .

Why it matters: The Eleventh Circuit’s decision provides an important reminder to employers of the obligation to inform employees of their FMLA rights. Once an employer knows that an employee’s leave may qualify for FMLA, the employer is obligated to evaluate whether the requested absence does qualify for FMLA protection, the court wrote. Employers must also provide notice to the employee of their eligibility for and rights under the FMLA within five business days, absent extenuating circumstances.