In a ruling that defines the scope of individual liability under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), a federal judge has refused to dismiss claims against individual human resources executives and a manager who allegedly set out to find a reason to fire a worker soon after learning that he needed to schedule a leave for a surgery.
In the suit, plaintiff, an industrial designer, claims that just a few days after he informed his bosses at Cardone Industries of his need for surgery, he was called in to a meeting and confronted with a pornographic e-mail found on his work computer. Plaintiff responded by filing a suit that named not only the company, but also the company president and four other individuals who, he claims, each played a role in orchestrating and carrying out a plan to violate his rights under the FMLA and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Defendants filed answer to the suit for Cardone Industries that denied the allegations, but argued in a separate motion that the individual defendants should be dismissed from the case.
Plaintiff argued that each of the five named individuals qualifies as an "employer" under the FMLA, and that the allegations in the suit went beyond merely citing their job titles.
The District Court found that while "conclusory" allegations are insufficient, Plaintiff had gone further by alleging that each of the individual defendants "participated in the forensic search of his computer with the goal of finding a reason to justify his termination because he had requested FMLA leave." The Court concluded that all five of the individuals were properly named as defendants because each one is alleged to have had the power to fire and to have played a role in the decision to oust the plaintiff.
Similarly, the Court concluded that all five must answer ERISA claims of interfering with his plan benefits because the suit properly alleged that they were the "decisionmakers" who allegedly decided to conduct a forensic search of the plaintiff's computer within a few days of learning that he was planning to take a medical leave. Timing was the crucial issue for the Court.
The significance of the case is that the Court refused to follow a string of decisions from federal courts in Utah, Minnesota and Kansas that have said FMLA's individual liability provisions apply only to corporate officers.
This case represents a crack in the door for opening liability under FMLA to individuals who are not corporate officers.
Narodetsky v. Cardone Industries, No. 09-4734, February 24, 2010
Showing posts with label FMLA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FMLA. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Appraise This!
The Sixth Circuit has ruled a former Kmart Corp. store associate who was selected for a reduction in force while she was out on six weeks of medical leave is entitled to a jury trial to decide whether the company interfered with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act and retaliated against her for taking leave.
Reversing a lower court's grant of summary judgment to Kmart, the appeals court finds in an unpublished opinion that a reasonable juror could reject Kmart's contentions that Susan Cutcher's performance was problematic and instead find that her status on FMLA leave affected her RIF appraisal ratings, leading to her selection for termination.
The key issue: the court points out that Cutcher's RIF appraisal was significantly lower than her annual performance review given just 20 days earlier and that none of the reasons given for the lower score had been documented previously.
This case is a reminder to HR: Handle workforce reductions for those on medical leave with care. Whether in times of force reductions or simply standard business operations, attention must be paid to how managers evaluate their employees. It will always be the case that certain managers rate high or low as a practice, so if you can’t train the manager to rate in a more realistic manner, then at least document that particular manager’s practice. This will help avoid the post-hoc allegation Kmart confronted and also lay the groundwork for later explaining potential differences in appraisals made by others.
At the least, remember, a "leave of absence" notation on the section of a reduction in force form identifying the reason for a termination decision will beg a court to deny summary judgment.
Cutcher v. Kmart Corp., 6th Cir., No. 09-1145, unpublished opinion 2/1/10
Reversing a lower court's grant of summary judgment to Kmart, the appeals court finds in an unpublished opinion that a reasonable juror could reject Kmart's contentions that Susan Cutcher's performance was problematic and instead find that her status on FMLA leave affected her RIF appraisal ratings, leading to her selection for termination.
The key issue: the court points out that Cutcher's RIF appraisal was significantly lower than her annual performance review given just 20 days earlier and that none of the reasons given for the lower score had been documented previously.
This case is a reminder to HR: Handle workforce reductions for those on medical leave with care. Whether in times of force reductions or simply standard business operations, attention must be paid to how managers evaluate their employees. It will always be the case that certain managers rate high or low as a practice, so if you can’t train the manager to rate in a more realistic manner, then at least document that particular manager’s practice. This will help avoid the post-hoc allegation Kmart confronted and also lay the groundwork for later explaining potential differences in appraisals made by others.
At the least, remember, a "leave of absence" notation on the section of a reduction in force form identifying the reason for a termination decision will beg a court to deny summary judgment.
Cutcher v. Kmart Corp., 6th Cir., No. 09-1145, unpublished opinion 2/1/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)