556 F. App'x 392
6th Cir.2014Background
- Clements, a Prudential Protective Services security guard, went on maternity leave in 2009 after giving birth to her second child.
- Her last day worked was May 23, 2009, and neither she nor supervisor Lively completed leave paperwork.
- Defendant provided minimal information about FMLA rights, with no written notice procedures or internal policies.
- Lively told Clements to contact the main office to schedule leave, but neither party did so before birth.
- In July 2009 Clements attempted to return to work; she learned hours at New Center were cut and could not be placed there.
- A lay-off letter dated August 24, 2009 stated she was laid off and would be called back when a position becomes available, though Keywell later claimed she was not laid off and could return to work elsewhere; dispute persisted over status and reassignment and no reemployment paperwork was created.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant interfered with FMLA rights and caused prejudice | Clements argues defendant’s failure to provide FMLA notice and proper reassignment procedures caused prejudice. | Defendant contends any alleged notice failure did not prejudice Clements and she could have sought reassignment. | Summary judgment reversed; material facts exist on interference and prejudice. |
| Whether Clements was laid off or reassigned and if a return to work was possible | Clements claims she was laid off and a position existed elsewhere that she could return to. | Defendant contends she was not laid off and could return to work at other sites; lay-off letter was misleading. | Issues of layoff versus reassignment and return rights remain unresolved; remand warranted. |
| Whether defendant had adequate notice procedures under FMLA | Defendant failed to provide required FMLA notice to employees. | No established procedures were in place; prior notice requirements were not clearly defined. | Procedural defects without clear procedures contribute to reversible error; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2002) (prejudice requirement for FMLA interference)
- Killian v. Yorozu Auto. Tennessee, Inc., 454 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2006) (elements for FMLA interference claim)
- Thom v. Am. Standard, Inc., 666 F.3d 968 (6th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of summary-judgment grants)