According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff failed
to provide medical certification to support her request for intermittent FMLA
leave despite many opportunities and reminders.
In the meantime, the employer provisionally issued disciplinary actions
for her unexcused absences that she alleged should have been covered by her
FMLA request. A few months later, she
alleged that a co-worker assaulted her and filed a criminal complaint against
him. Following separate investigations
by the police and the employer, which included video evidence, both the police
and the employer determined that the plaintiff had falsely accused her
co-worker and had actually assaulted him.
Accordingly, she was terminated.
The plaintiff brought suit in
state court alleging sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation, and
violation of the FMLA. The employer
removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. After dismissing the FMLA claims on summary
judgment, the trial court remanded the remaining claims back to state
court.
The Court of
Appeals found that the plaintiff could not show FMLA interference because she
suffered no financial harm from the employer’s failure to approve her FMLA
leave. Although she alleged that she
would have taken more time off work than she actually did if it had been
approved and if she had not been provisionally disciplined, she suffered no
compensable damages from this alleged harm. “[T]he FMLA does not provide a remedy
“unless the employee has been prejudiced by the violation.”
The FMLA provides that an employee whose rights are
interfered with is entitled to
damages equal to the amount of any
wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation denied or lost to
such employee by reason of the violation; or in a case in which wages, salary,
employment benefits, or other compensation have not been denied or lost to the
employee, any actual monetary losses sustained by the employee as a direct
result of the violation.
29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A)(i). If an employee does not suffer
any damages, then the FMLA does not provide a remedy.
The Court also rejected the FMLA retaliation claim because
the plaintiff could not show that the employer lacked on honest belief that she
had violated company policy by fabricating assault allegations against a co-worker
and assaulting him. Therefore, there was
insufficient evidence that it terminated her on account of her FMLA requests
instead of its proffered reasons:
In deciding whether an employer reasonably relied on the
particularized facts then before it, we do not require that the decisional process
used by the employer be optimal or that it left no stone unturned.” . . .
In reviewing Walgreens’s decision to fire Theiss, we are looking for “error on
the part of the employer that is too obvious to be unintentional.” . . . In light of this standard, we find
nothing in the record showing any gross deficiency or oversight in Walgreens’s
investigation. There is no evidence showing that Walgreens’s reasons for firing
Theiss were dishonest, pretextual, not sincerely held, or discriminatory. On
the contrary, Walgreens had a specific policy that provided for immediate termination
in cases of “harassment or horseplay” and “falsifying . . . documents.” Since Walgreens
determined—after due investigation—that this is precisely what Theiss had done,
her termination was directly in line with a clearly established company policy.
Finally, the Court found that the case had been improperly
remanded back to the state court after the dismissal of the FMLA claims. The case had been removed to federal court on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction, not just federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court had jurisdiction over
the state law claims on the basis of diversity of citizen between the parties.
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.
