Seventh Circuit in an FMLA Interference Case

By Last updated Feb 26, 2021

Friday February 26, 2021

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 (i.e. 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 in 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 under the FMLA”. The court also found that a successful plaintiff under an FMLA encroachment claim is entitled to only three remedies: (1) compensation or benefits lost in the violation, (2) actual monetary losses associated with 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 damage category was not available. The second category of damage concerns situations where, for example, a claimant is required to 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 returned 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 entitled to any of the types of legal relief allowed for FMLA interference claims. In other words, no harm, no foul.

The central theses

For allegations of FMLA interference, employers may want to carefully review the available legal remedies to assess the risk and identify possible defenses against FMLA claims. The lack of a possible legal remedy can be a basis for dismissing the claim. Employers may also want to take into account that there may be different potential remedial measures under applicable state FMLA law.