383 F. Supp. 3d 1293
U.S. Cir. Ct.2019Background
- Plaintiff was employed at a Burger King store acquired by defendant in December 2016; defendant retained predecessor’s employees and benefits. Plaintiff requested leave in early February 2017 to care for her hospitalized mother and was terminated on February 13, 2017.
- Plaintiff alleged FMLA interference (denial of leave) and retaliation for exercising FMLA rights.
- Defendant’s employee handbook/FMLA policy said employees should notify both their supervisor and Human Resources (HR) to request FMLA leave; managers were expected to tell employees to contact HR.
- Plaintiff repeatedly told her supervisor (Owes) and district manager (Morrissette) about her mother’s hospitalization and need for time off; managers did not tell her to contact HR or otherwise assist her with HR procedures.
- Plaintiff never read the handbook (it was distributed via a rushed online process), did not directly contact HR, and was required to work some shifts after requesting leave; she was then terminated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff was an eligible employee entitled to FMLA leave | Plaintiff was successor-employee; prior service with predecessor counts toward 12-month/1,250-hour eligibility | Defendant disputed 12-month employment under its ownership | Held: Plaintiff is eligible because defendant is successor in interest and predecessor service counts |
| Whether plaintiff gave proper notice for FMLA leave | Notice to supervisor/district manager was timely and sufficient; plaintiff satisfied timing/content requirements | Plaintiff failed to notify HR as required by defendant’s FMLA-specific procedure, so no lawful notice | Held: Employer may only enforce notice rules that apply generally to non-FMLA leave; plaintiff’s notice to supervisor was adequate; defendant’s motion denied |
| Whether defendant could deny/delay FMLA leave for failure to follow an FMLA-specific call-in/HR rule | Plaintiff says managers’ failure to direct her to HR and impracticable handbook distribution are "unusual circumstances" excusing any failure to contact HR | Defendant says its FMLA policy requiring HR notice is enforceable and plaintiff’s failure to contact HR defeats claim | Held: Court construed DOL regs to limit enforceable requirements to generally applicable leave rules; additionally, unusual circumstances (employer’s own failures) justified plaintiff’s failure to contact HR |
| Whether plaintiff proved retaliation (causal connection and pretext) | Close temporal proximity, inconsistent enforcement of discipline, manager resentment over coverage, and inconsistencies in defendant’s proffered reasons show pretext | Defendant cites insubordination and misconduct on Feb 12 as legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for termination | Held: Plaintiff made a prima facie case; material facts support a jury finding of pretext — summary judgment denied for defendant on retaliation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604 (11th Cir. 1991) (summary judgment initial burden allocation)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (movant may show nonmoving party cannot meet burden)
- United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property, 941 F.2d 1428 (11th Cir. 1991) (movant with burden must show absence of genuine issue on essential elements)
- White v. Beltram Edge Tool Supply, Inc., 789 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2015) (FMLA interference notice requirements: timing and content)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (Sup. Ct. 1997) (deference to agency interpretation of its regulations)
- Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Ctr., 568 U.S. 597 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (limits on deference where agency view conflicts with regulation)
- Spakes v. Broward County Sheriff's Office, 631 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2011) (termination after requesting FMLA leave can be interference)