Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation & Parole, 667 F.3d 408

Debra Haybarger, an office manager for Lawrence County Probation and Parole, was supervised by Mancino from 2001 onward.
Haybarger has serious medical conditions causing frequent absences; Mancino criticized these absences in evaluations.
In 2004 Mancino disciplined Haybarger with a six‑month probation and later recommended termination.
Haybarger was ultimately terminated on October 4, 2004, with Mancino involved in the process and communications.
Haybarger sued for ADA, PHRA, Rehabilitation Act, and FMLA claims; the district court granted Mancino summary judgment on the FMLA claim in his individual capacity.
On appeal, the Third Circuit vacated and remanded to determine whether a public‑agency supervisor can be liable under the FMLA and whether Mancino was Haybarger’s FMLA employer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether public‑agency supervisors can be liable under the FMLA	Haybarger	Mancino	Yes, supervisor liability possible; remand for fact questions
Whether Mancino was Haybarger's FMLA employer	Haybarger	Mancino	There is a genuine dispute of material fact; summary judgment reversed and remanded

Hodgson v. Arnheim & Neely, Inc., 444 F.2d 609 (2d Cir. 1971) (employer under FLSA may include agents acting in interest of an employer)
Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 2006) (FMLA employer definition includes public agencies and individuals)
Darby v. Bratch, 287 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2002) (supports individual liability for supervisors under FMLA)
Riordan v. Kempiners, 831 F.2d 690 (7th Cir. 1987) (economic reality theory for supervisory liability)
Carter v. Dutchess Cmty. Coll., 735 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1984) (limits of supervisory control under employer analysis)
Donovan v. Grim Hotel Co., 747 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1984) (economic reality test for employer status)
Wascura v. Carver, 169 F.3d 683 (11th Cir. 1999) (noting control over terms and conditions of employment for liability)