Coutard v. Municipal Credit Union
848 F.3d 102
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Frantz Coutard worked for Municipal Credit Union (MCU) and was eligible for FMLA leave when his grandfather Jean Dumond (who had raised him from early childhood) became seriously ill in January 2013.
- Coutard asked MCU for leave to care for his grandfather; MCU told him FMLA did not cover grandparents and denied FMLA leave, offering only a short-term company leave option which Coutard did not pursue.
- Coutard stayed home caring for Dumond and was terminated for job abandonment after more than two days absent.
- Coutard sued for FMLA interference/deny claims; both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted MCU summary judgment, concluding Coutard failed to provide sufficient notice that his grandfather stood in loco parentis.
- On appeal, Coutard argued MCU’s categorical denial and failure to inform or inquire shifted the employer’s obligations; MCU argued the employee bears the burden to provide all facts showing entitlement when requesting leave.
- The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding MCU had an obligation to ask for additional information before denying FMLA leave where Coutard’s request reasonably indicated the FMLA might apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coutard gave sufficient notice to trigger employer obligations under the FMLA | Coutard: requesting leave to care for a seriously ill grandfather who raised him reasonably indicated the FMLA might apply; MCU should have asked for more info | MCU: employee must provide the facts showing entitlement (e.g., in loco parentis) when requesting leave | Court: employee need only provide information showing the FMLA may apply; MCU had to request additional information before denying leave |
| Whether MCU’s categorical statement that grandparents are not covered satisfies its obligations | Coutard: MCU’s categorical denial and failure to inform/inquire was improper and prevented him from supplying needed facts | MCU: its notice (and use of DOL form language) relieved it of further inquiry obligation | Court: MCU’s categorical denial was insufficient; employer must seek additional info when notice indicates FMLA may apply |
| Whether employer could require medical certification absent an FMLA request process | Coutard: employer never requested certification under FMLA; thus he was not required to provide it before employer asked | MCU: failure to produce medical proof supports dismissal | Court: employer may request certification only if it invokes FMLA process; MCU never requested FMLA-specific certification before denying leave |
| Whether Coutard was entitled to partial summary judgment on liability | Coutard: MCU’s failures establish liability as a matter of law | MCU: disputes facts (including whether Dumond stood in loco parentis) and other defenses | Court: denied Coutard’s partial SJ—factual issues (e.g., credibility, some facts) remain for trial despite vacatur of dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America, 817 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2016) (adopted five-element interference standard under FMLA)
- Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2012) (employee need only give information that allows employer to reasonably determine FMLA may apply)
- Rask v. Fresenius Med. Care N. Am., 509 F.3d 466 (8th Cir. 2007) (employer duties triggered when employee provides enough information to put employer on notice of probable FMLA need)
- Burnett v. LFW, Inc., 472 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2006) (employee need only place employer on notice of a probable basis for FMLA leave)
- Bachelder v. America West Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2001) (employer, not employee, is responsible for determining whether leave likely qualifies under FMLA)