Santiago v. Department of Transportation
50 F. Supp. 3d 136
D. Conn.2014Background
- Santiago, a DOT employee since 1998, claimed FMLA interference and retaliation related to his request for leave due to chronic cluster headaches.
- May 2011: Santiago notified HR of his condition and the need for limited overtime; DOT discussed Article 39 and potential outcomes including less arduous duties or separation.
- May 2011: Dr. West submitted a medical certificate indicating a serious condition with intermittent incapacities; DOT HR claimed the form was incomplete for FMLA eligibility.
- June 2011: DOT concluded no suitable less arduous position; Santiago began Article 39 separation proceedings and was placed on leave, drawing on accrued leave to date.
- November 2011: Santiago sought intermittent FMLA leave; DOT later determined he was not eligible due to hours worked in the prior 12 months, though there was factual dispute about eligibility timing and notice.
- Plaintiff later returned to work intermittently and disability retirement was pursued; the court addressed whether the May 2011 denial and November 2011 reevaluation violated the FMLA and whether defendants were liable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Santiago suffered an FMLA-qualifying condition. | Santiago asserts a chronic condition qualifies for FMLA leave. | Defendants contend May 2011 certificate insufficient; no clear ongoing qualification proven. | Question unresolved; fact questions remain about qualification. |
| Interference or discouragement of FMLA rights (May 2011). | Rossi discouraged leave by signaling Article 39 outcomes if FMLA was pursued. | No explicit denial of FMLA; actions were not a denial but a clarification of options. | Rossi may be liable for interference; summary judgment denied as to Rossi on this issue. |
| Whether the named DOT individuals are 'employers' under the FMLA. | Rossi, Paulauskas, and Alejandro controlled FMLA decisions and thus are covered employers. | Redeker not liable; others may be liable only to the extent they influenced leave decisions. | Rossi, Paulauskas, and Alejandro are covered employers; Redeker granted summary judgment. |
| November 2011 denial of FMLA leave and eligibility. | Eligibility should be retained in May 2011 and November denial was improper or misapplied. | Eligibility re-evaluated; 1250-hour requirement may bar leave in November 2011. | Fact questions remain; estoppel argument discussed but not resolved. |
| Retaliation under the FMLA (count two). | Unpaid leave and separation actions after exercising FMLA rights constitute retaliation. | Chose disability retirement and voluntary separation; not clearly retaliatory. | Genuine dispute; summary judgment denied as to retaliation claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitaker v. Bosch Braking Sys. Div. of Robert Bosch Corp., 180 F.Supp.2d 922 (W.D. Mich. 2001) (pregnancy as serious health condition; prophylactic overtime restriction allowed FMLA leave)
- Avila-Blum v. Casa de Cambio Delgado, Inc., 519 F.Supp.2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (discouragement of medical leave can violate FMLA rights)
- Reilly v. Revlon, Inc., 620 F.Supp.2d 524 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (discouragement theory requires evidence of attempted assertion of FMLA rights)
- Verhoff v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 299 F.Appx. 488 (6th Cir. 2008) (intermittent leave can be used to avoid overtime affecting FMLA rights)
- Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges Inc., 761 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2014) (receipt of notice for FMLA rights; modern communications evidence can create issues of receipt)