‘No Hurt, No Foul,’ Says The Seventh Circuit In An FMLA Interference Case – Employment and HR

United States:

“No damage, no foul,” says the seventh circuit in an FMLA interference case

March 01, 2021

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart

To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com.

The Seventh Circle Court of Appeals recently upheld a summary judgment on behalf of an employer sued in an interference claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In the Hickey v Protective Life Corporation case, which the Seventh Circle ruled on February 12, 2021, the plaintiff had also filed a retaliation suit under the FMLA, but voluntarily dismissed the suit before a summary judgment was given.

background

The plaintiff worked as a seller, selling guarantees and insurance products. Following his grandmother’s illness and death, the plaintiff suffered from anxiety and depression and applied for a leave of absence under the FMLA approved by his employer. The defendant merged with another company while the plaintiff was on leave. As a result of this merger, the plaintiff’s geographic area was favorably adjusted by assigning him an area closer to where he lived. The employer also promised the plaintiff that his compensation (ie his commissions) would be guaranteed at the same level for six months after his leave of absence.

Shortly after returning to work, the plaintiff was dismissed for insubordination and lack of interest. He sued with retaliation and interference, but then voluntarily dropped his retaliation claim. The Hickey Court then issued a summary judgment on the FMLA interference claim.

Analysis of the court

The court noted that the FMLA “makes it unlawful for any employer to interfere, restrict, or refuse to exercise or attempt to exercise any right provided in the FMLA”. The court also found that a successful plaintiff had only three remedies under an FMLA interference claim: (1) compensation or benefits lost in the violation, (2) actual monetary losses related to the violation, or (3) reasonable fairness Relief such as employment, reinstatement, or promotion.

Since the plaintiff’s compensation was guaranteed for six months after his return from leave of absence, the first category of damage was not available. The second category of damage concerns situations where, for example, a claimant must hire a private caregiver for an insured family member in severe health if their FMLA vacation is illegally withheld. This type of remedy was not available to the Hickey plaintiff. The third category of remedies was also not applicable to the plaintiff, as he was reassigned to an equivalent position after his leave of absence.

The Hickey Court upheld a summary judgment in favor of the defendant because the plaintiff was not eligible for any of the types of legal relief allowed for FMLA interference claims. In other words, no harm, no foul.

The central theses

When employers are faced with allegations of FMLA disorder, they should carefully consider potential corrective measures to assess the risk and identify possible countermeasures against FMLA claims. The lack of a possible legal remedy can be a basis for dismissing the claim. Employers may also want to consider that there may be different potential remedies under applicable state FMLA law.

The content of this article is intended to provide general guidance on the subject. A professional should be obtained about your particular circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: United States Employment and Workers