Judge rules in favor of former employee
| Date | 01 August 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30643 |
| Published date | 01 August 2019 |
AUGUST 2019 NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR
11
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company • All rights reserved
DOI: 10.1002/nba
would approve her request.
On the next business day following her rst EAP
session, the plaintiff told her supervisors that her
leave request was “on hold.” But she didn’t provide
any explanation.
A week later, the plaintiff changed her mind and
renewed her request for four weeks of medical leave.
The plaintiff’s supervisors approved that request in
May, but they required her to use a combination of
annual leave and sick leave to do it.
The plaintiff eventually led a suit that made
several claims. One was interference with her rights
provided by the Family and Medical Leave Act.
However, the trial court judge granted the defen-
dant’s motion for summary judgment after deciding
that the plaintiff’s disclosure of her depression wasn’t
sufcient to put her supervisors on notice that she
could have qualied for FMLA protections.
On appeal, the court acknowledged that employees
must provide notice to their employers when they re-
quired FMLA leave. However, it said there wasn’t any
requirement that an employee use the term “FMLA”
or any other “magic words” to benet from the statute.
The panel explained that: (1) an employee only
needed to make the employer aware of her need for
potentially FMLA-qualifying leave and (2) once the
employer was on notice of that need, the responsi-
bility fell on the employer to inquire further about
whether the employee was seeking FMLA leave.
EMPLOYEE WINS ➔ The court ruled that a rea-
sonable jury could nd that the plaintiff’s disclosure
of her depression, when combined with her April 2015
request for psychiatrist-recommended leave, was suf-
cient to trigger the defendant’s responsibility to inquire
further about whether she was seeking FMLA leave.
The court reversed the trial judge’s ruling and sent
the case back for trial.
[P. v. Coats, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the
4th Circuit, No. 17-1943, 02/19/19].
Disability
Judge rules in favor of former employee
In 2004, the plaintiff began working for McMin-
nville Water & Light, which was a municipal utility
provider.
The plaintiff twice took short periods of leave
pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act in
December 2014 for stress, depression and anxiety.
He took more medical leave in February 2015 after
attempting suicide.
During that time off, he wrote a letter to MWL
management that complained about harassment from
his co-workers that included name calling, slandering
and talking about him behind his back. The plaintiff
also wrote that his frequent complaints about it to
his supervisor had been fruitless.
In the letter, the plaintiff also claimed: (1) his doc-
tor had recommended that he be placed with different
co-workers, (2) he had relayed that recommendation
to his supervisor and (3) he was told it was impos-
sible to do that.
The plaintiff began a lengthy treatment program
in mid-February.
In early April, McMinnville sent the plaintiff a
letter that stated: (1) he would soon exhaust available
FMLA leave and (2) a doctor’s release was required
for him “to return to full duty work in his position.”
Two weeks later, MWL sent the plaintiff another
letter that advised: (1) his FMLA leave would expire
in a few days and (2) there were no other positions
available into which he could transfer; but (3) his old
job was still available.
The plaintiff didn’t return to work, and MWL
treated that as a resignation.
He then led a suit that made several claims, one
of which was that MWL violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The utility led a motion for summary judgment.
The district court judge said an employer who
became aware of an employee’s need for an accom-
modation had an obligation to engage in an interactive
process to identify and implement reasonable changes.
EMPLOYEE WINS ➔ He concluded that MWL
knew about the plaintiff’s depression and anxiety,
because it was aware of his medical leave in 2014 and
2015 for those conditions.
The judge ruled that a summary judgment in favor
of MWL wasn’t appropriate because it: (1) made no
effort to discuss what could be done and (2) merely said
he could return to his previous position, which would
have required him to work with the same co-workers
whose conduct allegedly gave rise to his condition.
The judge also observed that McMinnville had
presented no evidence to show that placing the plain-
tiff with different co-workers would have imposed
an undue hardship or would otherwise have been
unreasonable.
The judge also said a jury should decide whether
MWL ended the plaintiff’s employment because of
an actual or perceived disability. He explained that
To continue reading
Request your trial