An Oregon federal district court recently issued a ruling confirming that workers must notify employers in order to receive protection under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This case confirms that employers can legitimately expect employees to comply with their usual termination obligations.
In the present case, the plaintiff, an employee of a steel mill in Oregon, had worked as a billet crane operator for more than 20 years. The plaintiff’s employer upheld a written policy requiring workers to turn to an outside administrator in the event of sick leave and clarifying that a medical certificate is not sufficient to excuse an absence. This guideline was posted on the entire construction site and sent to every employee. However, the plaintiff has denied ever having received such notification.
The employer also had a written attendance policy that included a count of “incidents” that occurred for each unexcused absence. These “incidents” would be used as part of an ongoing series of disciplinary measures and nine incidents within a year would result in dismissal.
On 25 MayNS, In 2016, the plaintiff was working a normal shift but began to experience severe abdominal pain which resulted in him leaving work early and later canceling the next two shifts and presenting doctor’s letters to the employer’s human resources department along with a letter of intent to return two Days after the first absence. The plaintiff did not contact the third party administrator at any time.
By the time the plaintiff returned, the sick leave had been exhausted and there had been three absenteeism, which was the limit of nine “incidents” for dismissals for previous absenteeism. However, a personnel coordinator at the steelworks sent the plaintiff an email telling him to contact the external administrator by the end of the day in order to avoid incidents.
The plaintiff did not attempt to contact the third party administrator and received notice that the three “incidents” would be disclosed. The plaintiff also claimed never received an email asking them to call the third party administrator, further claiming that getting and filing a medical certificate was enough to clear the FMLA and a similar law called the Oregon Family Leave Act (OFLA). However, the employer disagreed and the plaintiff was eventually fired because of the nine “incidents” that had occurred.
After unsuccessful disputes, the plaintiff filed a federal arbitration lawsuit seeking interference and retaliation under the FMLA and OFLA. The court first stated that it would judge the FMLA claims based on a provision in Oregon law that the OFLA would be construed in accordance with the FMLA whenever possible.
In the judgment of the court, it noted that the FMLA expressly provides that employers can require reasonable notification requirements and cited examples from the law that see a reasonable requirement in instructing an employee to call a certain number to request leave. In other case law, it was already provided that employers could apply disciplinary measures up to and including dismissal in the event of violations.
The plaintiff tried to distinguish this case because he had to call a third party administrator who was not administering any other vacation; however, the court found several cases in which this practice had already been confirmed. In the absence of an adequate warning, the court issued a summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
This case shows that an employer can expect employees to comply with reasonable notification requirements in order to be eligible for FMLA leave. However, employers should ensure that their policies are clearly displayed and made available to every employee.
Comments are closed.