Righi v. SMC Corp.
632 F.3d 404
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Righi was a sales representative for SMC Corporation in Illinois; he attended a mandatory two-week training in Indianapolis in July 2006.
- During the training he learned his elderly mother was in medical distress and returned to Illinois to attend to her.
- On July 12, 2006, Righi emailed his supervisor requesting the next couple days off and noted vacation time or the possibility of using the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
- Righi did not contact his supervisor for over a week and did not return calls during that period.
- He returned to work on July 20, 2006 and was terminated for violating SMC’s leave policy.
- Righi sued under the FMLA for interference; the district court granted summary judgment on two grounds, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed on the ground that Righi failed to comply with notice requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was notice sufficient to invoke FMLA leave? | Righi's email suggested possible FMLA leave. | Righi explicitly stated a preference for vacation or not to use FMLA. | No clear waiver; notice was equivocal, insufficient to invoke FMLA. |
| Did the employer satisfy its duty to inquire about the leave request? | Employer failed to clarify the leave request. | Employer actively attempted to obtain additional information. | Employer's inquiry was adequate; failure to return notice by employee doomed the claim. |
| Does failure to comply with notice/duration requirements preclude FMLA interference? | Righi’s leave may have been protected if notice was adequate. | Employee must provide timing/duration notice under 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c)-(d). | Righi’s vague notice and lack of timely communication foreclose FMLA interference claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridings v. Riverside Medical Center, 537 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2008) (establishes notice requirements for FMLA claims and that lack of notice defeats protection)
- Brown v. Automotive Components Holdings, LLC, 622 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2010) (holds that missing proper notice defeats FMLA protection)
- Aubuchon v. Knauf Fiberglass, GmbH, 359 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2004) (employee must provide enough information to invoke FMLA rights; equivocal notices permitted in some cases)
- Stevenson v. Hyre Electric Co., 505 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2007) (reiterates that a user need not expressly mention FMLA to invoke rights; awareness of need for leave suffices)
- Gilliam v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 233 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2000) (employers are entitled to notice of when employee will return from leave)