Earlier this year, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed an employer’s summary judgment on an FMLA claim. Tilley v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission, No. 14-1679 (6th Cir. 1/26/15). While the Court agreed that the plaintiff was not eligible for FMLA leave because he did not work at an eligible work site, the employer could be equitably stopped because it had misstated his eligibility in its Personnel Manual. The Manual stated that employees were eligible for FMLA leave as long as they had been employed a year and had worked 1,250 hours in the prior twelve months, but said nothing about needing to work at a qualified work site with at least 50 employees within 75 miles. Because the plaintiff showed that he had reasonably relied on this misstatement of his eligibility to his detriment, it arguably violated the FMLA to terminate his employment, in part, because he failed to meet a work deadline during his medical leave.
According to the
Court’s opinion, the plaintiff’s supervisor was unhappy with his job
performance and had set a number of work deadlines and issued disciplinary
warnings. When the plaintiff’s final
deadline of August 1 was approaching (pursuant to his final written performance
warning), he was taken to the hospital and kept overnight because of chest
pains. His wife informed his employer
that he would not be returning to work before August 5 and HR sent him FMLA
paperwork on August 9. He was informed
in the Eligibility Notice that he was eligible for FMLA leave and HR did not
check the box for employees who were not eligible because they did not work at
an eligible work site. He was also
informed that he had 15 days to submit medical documentation to substantiate
his need for FMLA leave.
Nonetheless, the
plaintiff was terminated on August 12, in part for failing to meet his August 1 or other
deadlines. This lawsuit followed, where
the plaintiff alleged that he had been terminated on account of his age and in
violation of the FMLA. The district
court granted summary judgment to the employer on both claims and the Court of
Appeals affirmed dismissal of the age discrimination claim. The lower court found that the plaintiff was
not eligible for FMLA leave because he did not work at a site with at least 50
employees within 75 miles on the date that his medical leave began. The court also rejected any argument of
reasonable and detrimental reliance on the eligibility notice because it had not been sent to him
until after he began his medical leave.
On appeal,
the Sixth Circuit agreed that the plaintiff was not an eligible employee under
the FMLA. Although the plaintiff
produced evidence that the employer arguably employed at least 50 employees
within 75 miles of his worksite a few weeks earlier in July 2011, he did not
contradict the employer’s evidence that it had not employed at least 50
employees in that area on August 1, when he began medical leave:
But the number of employees
at that time [July 2011) is not relevant. For purposes of the FMLA
50/75-Employee Threshold, the number of employees “is determined when the
employee gives notice of the need for leave.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.110(e).
Nonetheless,
even though the plaintiff was not eligible under the FMLA statute or
regulations, the Court found that the employer could be equitably estopped from
denying his eligibility because of misinformation it provided in the its Personnel
Manual.
We have held that in
order “to prevail on his equitable estoppel argument,” an employee “need show
only (1) a definite misrepresentation as to a material fact, (2) a reasonable reliance
on the misrepresentation, and (3) a resulting detriment to the party reasonably
relying on the misrepresentation.”
In this case,
the Manual provided that employees were eligible for FMLA if they worked for at
least a year and 1,250 hours in the prior twelve months. It said nothing about needing to work at a
qualified work site where there were at least 50 employees within a 75 mile
radius. “This is an unambiguous and unqualified statement that Road
Commission employees, like [the plaintiff], who have logged 1,250 hours in the
year before seeking FMLA leave are covered by the FMLA and are eligible
to apply for FMLA benefits.”
The [defendant
employer] could have qualified its statement concerning employee eligibility by
adding that its full-time employees would only be covered by the FMLA if they
worked at, or within 75 miles of, a site at which the [defendant employer] employed
at least 50 employees. That is precisely what other employers have
done. . . . And courts have recognized that such qualifying language may
effectively communicate to employees that they are assured of eligibility only
if the FMLA 50/75-Employee Threshold is met. Cf. Pearle Vision, 251
F.3d at 1137. We conclude that the [defendant employer’s] unqualified statement
that employees in Tilley’s position are covered under the FMLA satisfies the
misrepresentation element of the equitable estoppel test.
The Court rejected the employer’s arguments that it
should not be penalizing for explaining the FMLA to employees at non-qualified
work sites because the FMLA regulations require all covered employers to
provide a notice of FMLA rights at all work sites, even if the employees at
particular sites do not meet the 50 employee/75 mile threshold. This is because there is
nothing in the FMLA requiring employers to misinform employees about the
eligibility requirements and not including a statement about the 50 employee/75
mile threshold. On the contrary, the
DOL’s template notice form describes the 50 employee/75 mile threshold for FMLA
eligibility.
Moreover, the plaintiff provided an affidavit that he
relied on the misstatements in the Manual about his eligibility for FMLA leave
before he began his medical leave. He claimed
that if he had known that he was not eligible for FMLA leave, he would have
made other arrangements to finish his August 1 project. While there are reasons to doubt the veracity
of the plaintiff’s claim that he would have delayed treatment for a possibly
life-threatening heart attack in order to complete his work project on time,
the question of his veracity is for a jury at trial and not a judge at the
summary judgment stage.
In addition, the Court believed that the plaintiff’s
reliance on the Manual was reasonable from his perspective. Indeed, HR sent him a notice confirming his eligibility
for FMLA leave based on its own review and interpretation of the Manual.
Simply put, a
reasonable person in [the plaintiff’s] position could fairly have believed that
he was protected by the FMLA. . . . . . The
[employer] is thus in no position to argue that [he] acted unreasonably in reaching
the same conclusion.
Finally, the
plaintiff could show that he suffered to his detriment by relying on the misstatement
of his FMLA eligibility in the Manual because he was ultimately fired in part
for missing the August 1 deadline while he took medical leave. Accordingly, the employer was not entitled
to summary judgment on the FMLA claim.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to
inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal
advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts
could lead to different results. Information here can be changed or
amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without
legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should
consult with or retain an employment attorney.
