Vanderhoof v. Life Extension Inst. - 988 F. Supp. 507 (D.N.J. 1997)

Rule:

An eligible employee under the Family Medical Leave Act is one who has been employed for at least 12 months by the employer with respect to whom leave is requested. 29 U.S.C.S. § 2611(2)(A)(i). The term "employer" encompasses any successor in interest of an employer. 29 U.S.C.S. § 2611(4)(A)(ii)(II).

Facts:

Plaintiff Edna Vanderhoof, 54 years old, was employed by Executive Health Group ("EHG") beginning in 1989. In 1995, defendant Life Extension Institute, Inc. ("LEI"), acquired certain businesses of EHG National Health Services, Inc., by way of an asset purchase agreement. Included in the purchase was the EHG clinic in Morristown, New Jersey, where Vanderhoof was employed. After the acquisition, there was no interruption in the operation of the Morristown clinic. Though employees apparently had to fill out new employment applications and other new employee forms, this was merely pro forma. Vanderhoof continued her employment at the clinic and performed the same duties she had performed when EHG owned it. Plaintiff was later injured in a car accident. Plaintiff’s request for time off under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), was denied, as she had not been employed long enough. While on an unpaid leave of medical absence, her employment was terminated. Subsequently, plaintiff brought an action against defendant employers, claiming that her firing violated the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 621 et seq., state age discrimination laws, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (COBRA). She filed a motion for summary judgment as to her eligibility under the FMLA and ADEA. Defendants moved to dismiss. 

Issue:

1. Under the circumstances, was the plaintiff employee eligible for FMLA benefits? 
2. Was the plaintiff employee able to make out a prima facie ADEA claim? 

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The court applied the eight factors of 29 C.F.R. § 825.107(a) and found that the defendant employers were successors in interest and, therefore, the plaintiff employee was eligible for FMLA benefits. The court held that the plaintiff employee was able to make out a prima facie ADEA claim and rebutted the employers' economies of scale justification as a pretext for discriminatory practices due to the employers' trend towards a younger front office and the profitability of the office. Moreover, the court held that there was a sufficient question of fact as to the validity of the employer's contentions in the FMLA claim to deny summary judgment.