Blanche Paylor v. Hartford Fire Insurance Group
748 F.3d 1117
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Paylor, an eligible Hartford employee, requested FMLA leave and had previously taken 390 hours of FMLA leave while employed (Jan 2008–Sept 2009).
- In mid-September 2009 Hartford gave Paylor the choice: accept a Severance Agreement (13 weeks severance in exchange for releasing claims, including FMLA claims) or enter a performance-improvement plan (PIP).
- Paylor signed the Severance Agreement on September 17, 2009; she later sued alleging FMLA interference and retaliation based on Hartford’s choice presentation (PIP vs. severance).
- District Court granted summary judgment for Hartford, concluding the release validly waived Paylor’s FMLA claims as claims based on past conduct and that the waiver was knowing and voluntary.
- Paylor appealed arguing (1) the DOL regulation forbids waiving prospective FMLA rights and her outstanding leave request made her rights prospective, (2) the release was not knowing and voluntary, and (3) the release violated FMLA public policy.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the DOL regulation bars only prospective waivers of future violations, Paylor’s claims arose from past conduct, and her release was knowing and voluntary; the public-policy argument was not preserved for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Severance Agreement unlawfully waived "prospective" FMLA rights under 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(d) | Paylor: Her outstanding FMLA request made her rights "prospective," so the release is invalid without DOL/court approval. | Hartford: The release covered claims arising from past conduct; the DOL rule prohibits only prospective waivers of future violations. | Court: "Prospective" means future incidents; Paylor’s alleged interference/retaliation occurred before signing, so release valid. |
| Whether the release was knowing and voluntary | Paylor: Signed under stress and without sufficient time/review; not knowing/voluntary. | Hartford: Paylor was experienced, advised she had 21 days to consider, invited to consult counsel, and received severance not otherwise due. | Court: Totality of circumstances shows no genuine factual dispute—waiver was knowing and voluntary. |
| Whether the release violates public policy underlying the FMLA | Paylor: Forcing an uninformed choice undermines FMLA’s purpose of protecting employees caring for family. | Hartford: Release settles past conduct; valid under the regulation and established law. | Court: Public-policy argument forfeited (not raised below); not considered on appeal. |
| Standard of review / applicability of DOL regulation | Paylor: Regulation should be read to protect unexercised rights of an eligible employee. | Hartford: Regulation targets forward‑looking, blanket waivers of future FMLA claims, not releases for past conduct. | Court: De novo review; adopted DOL’s amended regulation meaning—prospective = future incidents; prior-cause releases permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farris v. Williams WCP-I, Inc., 332 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2003) (interpreting the regulation to prohibit only prospective waivers)
- Taylor v. Progress Energy, Inc., 415 F.3d 364 (4th Cir. 2005) (taking broader view that regulation barred retrospective and prospective waivers)
- Taylor v. Progress Energy, Inc., 493 F.3d 454 (4th Cir. 2007) (reaffirming Taylor I before DOL amended the rule)
- Myricks v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 480 F.3d 1036 (11th Cir. 2007) (totality-of-circumstances test for knowing and voluntary waiver)
- Spakes v. Broward Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 631 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2011) (employer can show an unrelated reason to deny restoration after FMLA)
- Strickland v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of City of Birmingham, 239 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2001) (affirming that reinstatement can be denied if employer would have discharged employee regardless of FMLA leave)
- Johnson Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc., 162 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 1998) (criticizing shotgun pleadings and urging early narrowing of issues)