Divided Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of FMLA Claims But Finds Possible ERISA Claims Based on Same Evidence

Yesterday, a divided Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on FMLA interference and retaliation claims where the plaintiff employee, like 55 employees before him, had been fired under the common company policy for failing to call off for three consecutive days, but on the same facts the Court reversed dismissal of his ERISA interference and retaliation claims on the grounds that the employer’s failure to call him to check on him (like some other employees who had similarly failed to show or call off) prior to terminating his employment could constitute evidence of pretext.   Stein v. Atlas Industries, Inc., No. 17-3737 (6^th Cir. 4-9-18).  The Court found that the employee could not show unlawful interference with his right to take FMLA leave because the FMLA regulations permit employers to enforce call-off policies, which the plaintiff admittedly had failed to observe due to his own confusion about when he had been released to return to work.  His confusion about what his physician had written did not excuse his failure.  The Court also concluded that he could not show unlawful retaliation based only on the passage of 10 weeks between the start of his FMLA leave and his termination because temporal proximity alone is insufficient evidence when the span of time is more than 8 weeks.  Unlike his FMLA claim, however, the employee was able to produce evidence that his self-insured employer was very concerned about the medical bills incurred by his son.   Therefore, the passage of 7 months did not destroy his evidence of causation because he was not relying on temporal proximity alone and it was known that his son would likely require another hospitalization.   This “extra” evidence of employer motivation also apparently made relevant evidence of  pretext that the Court had previously rejected as evidence of pretext in his FMLA claims.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had worked for the defendant company for 20 years and even had a year of perfect attendance when his son required hospitalization for a severe, chronic and rare neurological condition that apparently caused the employer’s insurance rates to rise and had been blamed by some employees for the employer’s inability to raise wages.  The employee then required surgery for a work-related injury and was off work on FMLA leave for 10 weeks.   Near the end of July, his doctor told him that he could return to unrestricted duty on  August 10.  However, the employee did not understand or realize that his physician had immediately released him to return to work on light duty on July 20 and had so informed the employer.   Although employees are entitled under the FMLA to reject light duty work, they are still required to adhere to the employer’s attendance policy, which in this case required employees to call off every day that they did not intend to return to work after they have been released to light duty.  When the employer received the physician’s release for light duty, it called the physician to confirm the release because the employee had not called off work.  When the employee did not report to work for three consecutive days or call off, it terminated his employment like it had 55 employees before him.   The employee produce some evidence that the employer had called some other employees before terminating them under the same policy, thereby showing selective enforcement.

First, the Court rejected the FMLA interference claim.  The Court found that the employee’s confusion about his medical release and its ramifications did not constitute “unusual circumstances” to excuse his failure to call off work under the employer’s policy.  The type of “unusual circumstances” that would have justified him not complying with the policy would be a malfunctioning voicemail or telephone system.   While the Court was sympathetic that the doctor told the employee one thing, but wrote something else, the Court also found that the employee should have read the form which his physician gave him.  The Court also rejected the FMLA interference claim because FMLA regulations require employees to comply with their employer’s call off procedures even if they are entitled to be on FMLA leave. 

Here, [the employer’s] policy required employees on medical leave to either return to work or call in once their doctor released them with light-duty restrictions.  And the company’s employee handbook provided that “any associate who is absent three (3) consecutive days without permission or without calling in [would] be automatically discharged.”  . . . So, when [the plaintiff] failed to report for work or call in for three consecutive days after his release, [the employer] was within its rights to terminate him.   

It was irrelevant that the employee was legally entitled to reject light duty work under the FMLA. 

Had [the employee] contacted [the employer] to say that he was using his remaining two weeks of FMLA leave and the company subsequently fired him under the attendance policy, [he] would have a claim.  But that is not what happened.  [Its] policy required [him] either to return to work or call in and report his intentions, and [he] did neither.  So the light-duty regulations do not protect him.

Second, the Court rejected the FMLA retaliation claim.   The employee apparently admitted that his only evidence of retaliation was the temporal proximity of the termination – 10 weeks after he began FMLA leave.   There were apparently no stray or other remarks which would show that the employer was motivated to retaliate for his taking FMLA leave.  However, temporal proximity alone cannot constitute sufficient evidence of causation when the lapse of time is greater than 8 weeks.   Accordingly, the Court affirmed dismissal of the FMLA claims. 

Finally, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether the employee was fired in retaliation for, and to prevent him from, using his ERISA benefits to obtain employer-covered medical treatment for his son.  The employer was self-insured for medical coverage and had stop-loss coverage for extraordinary claims.   The company had apparently spent $500K on his son’s care in the prior year (part of which was covered by the stop-loss coverage) and had been publicly lamenting “skyrocketing” health care costs in employee bulletins.  The HR Director was alleged to have complained about this to another employee and attributed the rising employee premiums to his son’s $1M in medical bills.  While the employee’s supervisor made the decision to terminate his employment, he did not act alone because the HR Director and the VP of Operations also participated in the decision, decided to not reconsider or excuse his confusion about his medical release, and were well aware of the cost of his son’s medical expenses.   Further, the passage of seven months between his son’s hospitalization and the termination decision did not destroy the temporal proximity inference because, as just discussed, the employee was not relying on temporal proximity alone (as he did in his FMLA claim).   This was particularly true when it was known and likely that his son would have to return to the hospital again in the future.

The employer again explained that it had fired the employee under its policy of automatically firing employees who fail to show up or call off for three consecutive days and pointed out that it had similarly fired 55 other employees under this policy.  

Thus it is [the employee’s] turn once more.  [The employee] “need not show that the employer’s sole purpose was to interfere with [his] entitlement to benefits” or to retaliate, but instead that a reasonable jury could find that unlawful considerations were a “motivating factor” in its actions.  

The Court then remarkably concluded that while the employer’s rationale was justified under the FMLA, it could constitute pretext under ERISA.   Although the Court rejected the employee’s argument that the employer’s failure to call him to schedule a return-to-work drug test after he had been released to return to light duty was evidence of pretext for his FMLA retaliation claim, it found that evidence relevant for his ERISA retaliation claim.  Finally, it found that the employee’s “suggestion” that the employer had called some workers to find out why they had not returned to work or called off (instead of automatically terminating them) constituted evidence of selective enforcement and ERISA retaliation, but was apparently irrelevant to his FMLA retaliation claim. 

[The plaintiff] had worked at [the defendant company] for nearly twenty years, had won at least one perfect attendance award, and had worked overtime when asked.  He seems to have been a satisfactory employee.  But as the three days after his release to light duty rolled by, [the defendant company] reached out only to [his] doctor and [its]third-party administrator for workers’ compensation claims—just to double-check that [he] had really been released.  And even though [its] employee handbook indicates that [he] had to “complete a return to work fitness exam and drug screen prior to returning to work” that “[would] be scheduled by the Human Resource department,”  . . . the company did not schedule [his] drug screen before it fired him.   . . .   Although [the defendant employer] was not required to reach out to [him, for reasons set out in the FMLA-interference discussion above, the fact that it did not do so could still raise a juror’s suspicions about [its] motives.  And while [the employer] claims that this was all just standard practice—pointing to a list of fifty-five employees that the company terminated under its no-call, no-show policy in the past twenty or so years—[its] list only includes names and dates.  It does not indicate whether these fifty-five terminations are otherwise similar to [the plaintiff’s] in the relevant respects.  And [the plaintiff], for his part, has pointed to evidence suggesting that his superiors selectively enforced the absenteeism policy by calling some employees to “ask what’s up” when they failed to show up for work, but not others.  

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.