45 F.4th 726
4th Cir.2022Background
- Roberts worked on Gestamp’s assembly line; Gestamp’s written policy required employees to call a designated call‑in line at least 30 minutes before a shift to report absences; three consecutive no‑call/no‑show shifts could be treated as job abandonment.
- In June 2019 Roberts had an emergency appendectomy; he and supervisor Gary Slater had previously communicated about infection‑related absences via Facebook Messenger, and Gestamp credited Roberts with FMLA leave for earlier absences.
- Gestamp conceded Roberts was on FMLA leave June 27–August 12, 2019; Roberts was readmitted to the hospital for an infection on August 20 and notified Slater via Facebook Messenger that he was being admitted and did not know how long he would be hospitalized.
- Slater read some messages and engaged previously via Messenger; human resources testified it was unaware of the Facebook messages; Gestamp terminated Roberts for job abandonment (disputed whether termination effective August 21 or August 28); Roberts returned September 3 with a doctor’s note and discovered he had been fired.
- Roberts sued for FMLA interference, FMLA retaliation, and wrongful discharge under West Virginia law; the district court granted summary judgment to Gestamp, holding Roberts failed to follow the written call‑in procedure, and Roberts appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Facebook Messenger satisfied the FMLA requirement to follow the employer’s “usual and customary” notice procedures | Roberts: Gestamp’s practice and prior acceptance of Messenger with Slater converted Messenger into a usual and customary notice method | Gestamp: Written call‑in line is the employer’s required usual procedure and Roberts failed to use it | Reversed summary judgment on interference as to notice; reasonable jury could find informal practice (Messenger) was a usual and customary method under 29 C.F.R. §825.303(c) |
| Whether the content of Roberts’s Messenger notices adequately informed Gestamp of FMLA‑qualifying leave and anticipated duration | Roberts: Messages referenced the same infection previously covered by FMLA and stated he was admitted and did not know return date | Gestamp: Messages lacked a definitive return date and Roberts failed to update using call‑in | For hospital stay (Aug 20–23) the notice was adequate; factual disputes remain as to later recovery period and updates, so interference claim survives summary judgment |
| Whether Gestamp met any follow‑up obligation and whether failure to update defeated FMLA interference | Roberts: HR did not know of the Messenger notices and did not properly follow up; Gestamp cannot rely on its written policy if it accepted Messenger | Gestamp: HR made efforts to call and had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (policy violation) to terminate for job abandonment | Genuine factual disputes about HR follow‑up and the factual record (including termination date) preclude summary judgment in Gestamp’s favor on interference |
| Whether Roberts established FMLA retaliation and wrongful‑discharge (Harless) claims | Roberts: Termination was caused by exercise of FMLA rights; Slater’s knowledge/animus supports causation | Gestamp: Decisionmaker (Hughes) lacked knowledge of Roberts’s FMLA requests; nondiscriminatory reason exists | Affirmed for Gestamp: retaliation and Harless wrongful‑discharge fail because the decisionmaker lacked knowledge (no proof of retaliatory motive) |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Anne Arundel Cnty. Pub. Sch., 789 F.3d 422 (4th Cir. 2015) (elements of an FMLA interference claim)
- Vannoy v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of Richmond, 827 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2016) (FMLA relief requires prejudice from the violation)
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002) (limitations on FMLA relief where employee not prejudiced)
- Yashenko v. Harrah’s NC Casino Co., 446 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2006) (employer can avoid liability by showing same action would have been taken absent FMLA leave)
- Dotson v. Pfizer, Inc., 558 F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2009) (no ‘‘magic words’’ required for FMLA notice)
- Peeples v. Coastal Off. Prods., Inc., [citation="64 F. App'x 860"] (4th Cir. 2003) (notice should inform employer when employee will return)
- Srouder v. Dana Light Axle Mfg., LLC, 725 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2013) (unusual circumstances required to excuse failure to follow call‑in rules)
- Festerman v. County of Wayne, [citation="611 F. App'x 310"] (6th Cir. 2015) (a consistent unwritten practice can satisfy §825.303(c) despite a formal written procedure)
- Donald v. Sybra, Inc., 667 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2012) (adequacy of FMLA notice is intensely factual)
- Hannah P. v. Coats, 916 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2019) (McDonnell Douglas framework applies to FMLA retaliation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Wright v. Southwest Airlines, [citation="319 F. App'x 232"] (4th Cir. 2009) (decisionmakers must have knowledge of protected activity to infer retaliation)
- Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653 (4th Cir. 1998) (employer knowledge of protected activity is necessary for retaliation)
- Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., 354 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (limits on imputing subordinate motives to employer decisionmaker)
- Harless v. First Nat’l Bank in Fairmont, 246 S.E.2d 270 (W. Va. 1978) (West Virginia public‑policy wrongful‑discharge cause of action)
- Burke v. Wetzel Cnty. Comm’n, 815 S.E.2d 520 (W. Va. 2018) (FMLA violations can support a Harless claim)