Judge rules vague email not sufficient notice for FMLA leave
| Published date | 01 December 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30694 |
| Date | 01 December 2019 |
NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR DECEMBER 2019
10 © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company • All rights reserved
DOI: 10.1002/nba
Employment Law
Here’s a look at several recent notable lawsuits involving nonprots. Nonprots should regularly review
employment laws and their compliance efforts to avert similar issues.
FMLA
Judge rules vague email not sufcient
notice for FMLA leave
In November 2013, the plaintiff became a project
manager in the Philadelphia Ofce of Innovation
and Technology.
In December 2016, she took several days of sick
leave for the stated reason of “work stress.”
The plaintiff sent an email to her supervisor in
February 2017 that stated: “With me being in a
stressful work environment and having other medi-
cal issues, my doctor wants me to take sick leave for
a few days. I am hoping to return to work sometime
next week.” However, that email didn’t indicate what
these “other medical issues” were, and the plaintiff
didn’t discuss her planned absence from work with
the human resources department.
After the plaintiff was terminated two days later for
the stated reason of “continued performance decien-
cies,” she led a suit claiming retaliation in violation
of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The city led a motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiff testied in her deposition that the
“other medical issues” referenced in the email were
depression, anxiety and stress, although her doctor
had never diagnosed her with those conditions.
The district court judge said invoking FMLA
rights required an employee to provide sufcient
information for the employer to reasonably un-
derstand that the statute might apply to the leave
request.
She held that the plaintiff had never indicated
to anyone that: (1) she intended to request medical
leave, (2) was considering going on FMLA leave or
(3) had a serious health condition that would entitle
her to any leave.
She also said there wasn’t any evidence that the
city was on notice that the plaintiff had intended
to use sick leave for an FMLA-qualifying reason
because: (1) there were only vague references in the
plaintiff’s email to a stressful work environment and
unidentiable “medical issues” and (2) the plaintiff
had stated that she hoped to return after taking a few
days of sick leave.
EMPLOYER WINS ➔ The judge ruled that the
email was precisely the type of vague generic reference
in which the likelihood of a serious health condition
was merely conceivable but not sufciently likely to
put the burden of inquiry onto the employer. She
explained that the email omitted any description of
symptoms, the type of needed treatment or the con-
ditions that precipitated her email request beyond a
stressful work environment.
The judge said there wasn’t any reason to take the
plaintiff’s email at anything other than face value,
because the city was unaware of any prior serious
health condition, any upcoming medical treatment or
any other probable basis for the leave request possibly
being FMLA-protected.
The judge granted a summary judgment in favor of
the city, ruling that no reasonable jury could decide
that the plaintiff had provided reasonably adequate
notice that she was either seeking FMLA leave for her
absence or using sick leave for a potentially FMLA-
qualifying reason.
[Gardiner v. City of Philadelphia, et al., U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No.
18-904, 06/14/2019].
Hostile work environment
Fire captain conduct ruled insufciently
severe or pervasive
The plaintiff, a member of the Arson Investiga-
tion Unit of the Jersey City Fire Department, led
a suit against the city and others that made several
claims.
One was a hostile work environment in violation
of Title VII.
The plaintiff alleged that some of the hostile
environment arose because of gender bias because
the re captain had referred to her as a “baby back,”
and once said words to the effect that “females need
to understand things are different in the rehouse.”
The plaintiff also alleged that she was denied access
to the locker room.
According to the plaintiff, she was also the victim
of discrimination because of her active military ser-
vice, alleging: (1) the re captain said she was lucky
to have unlimited leave, (2) new regulations regarding
notice of leave were implemented, (3) she was denied
To continue reading
Request your trial