992 F.3d 1233
11th Cir.2021Background
- Noorjahan Ramji, a hospital housekeeper, injured her right knee at work on Sept. 15, 2016; Hospital Housekeeping treated it solely as a workers’ compensation matter and never informed her of FMLA rights.
- Dr. Harkins prescribed cortisone and physical therapy, released Ramji for light duty on Sept. 23 and later cleared her for regular duty on Oct. 21; the employer required an "essential‑functions" physical test before reinstatement but did not inform the treating doctor about the test or its tasks.
- During the essential‑functions test Ramji experienced pain, could not complete several tasks (deep squats, kneeling, lifting, stair descent, toe‑stand), failed the test, was denied requests to use sick/vacation leave, and was terminated Oct. 24.
- Because termination interrupted continuous treatment, Ramji litigated workers’ compensation (later settled), resumed uninterrupted therapy months later, and ultimately recovered after a continuous 12‑week course.
- Ramji sued for FMLA interference; the district court granted summary judgment for the employer, but the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded, finding triable issues on notice, denial of FMLA benefits, and prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ramji had an FMLA‑qualifying serious health condition and gave sufficient notice | Ramji: knee injury with >3 days incapacity and continuing treatment (physician visits + prescribed PT) and employer personnel witnessed the injury and accompanied medical visits | HH: employer relied on treating physician’s October clearance (MMI, 0% impairment), so no basis to think FMLA applied | Court: Ramji presented sufficient evidence to raise a jury question that her injury qualified and that employer had notice triggering FMLA duties |
| Whether employer’s provision of workers’ compensation benefits excuses its FMLA notice/designation duties | Ramji: workers’ comp does not absolve FMLA obligations; employer still had to give eligibility/rights notice | HH: because employer handled the injury as workers’ comp and paid for excused days, it reasonably did not need to give FMLA notice | Court: rejected HH’s excuse; FMLA and workers’ comp can run concurrently and workers’ comp payments do not relieve FMLA notice obligations |
| Whether offering light‑duty work relieved HH of FMLA duties or allowed it to force acceptance | Ramji: she was entitled to choose unpaid FMLA instead of light duty and must be informed of that right | HH: offering/placement into light duty meant no FMLA entitlement or notice was required | Court: employer may not require light duty in lieu of FMLA; offering light duty does not waive employee’s right to FMLA leave and employer must notify |
| Whether Ramji suffered prejudice/harm remediable under FMLA (reinstatement or damages) | Ramji: lack of notice caused loss of uninterrupted 12 weeks of treatment, loss of lump‑sum payout of accrued leave, and led to termination; with notice she would have taken FMLA leave and likely returned | HH: even with notice Ramji still would have needed more than 12 weeks (knee replacement likely) so she would not have been reinstated; substitution of paid leave was inapplicable | Court: genuine issues of material fact exist on prejudice — a jury could find uninterrupted 12 weeks would have aided recovery and that Ramji lost paid‑leave payout; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002) (FMLA violations actionable only if employee suffered prejudice remediable by statute)
- White v. Beltram Edge Tool Supply, Inc., 789 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2015) (notice and timing standards for FMLA leave)
- Cruz v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 428 F.3d 1379 (11th Cir. 2005) (employer’s duty to evaluate potential FMLA‑qualifying leave once on notice)
- Gay v. Gilman Paper Co., 125 F.3d 1432 (11th Cir. 1997) (what constitutes adequate employee notice to employer)
- Munoz v. Selig Enterprises, Inc., 981 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2020) (elements of an FMLA interference claim)
- Evans v. Books‑A‑Million, 762 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2014) (harm/prejudice requirement for FMLA interference)
- Krutzig v. Pulte Home Corp., 602 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2010) (employer’s motive irrelevant to FMLA notice obligations)
- Hannah P. v. Coats, 916 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2019) (prejudice where lack of notice altered employee’s leave decisions)
- Vannoy v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond, 827 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2016) (purpose of FMLA notice: enable informed medical/leave choices)