There are many reasons why companies should carefully
scrutinize whether it is permissible to terminate an employee who is on or
returning from Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") leave. Here is one more.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in an issue of first impression that the employer bears
the burden of proof when it alleges that it had a legitimate reason to not
reinstate an employee following the conclusion of the employee's FMLA leave.
In Sanders v. City of Newport [enhanced version of this opinion available to lexis.com
subscribers / unenhanced version available from lexisONE Free Case Law],
a utility billing clerk sued the City of Newport when it refused to reinstate
her following the conclusion of her FMLA leave. The employee took FMLA leave
when she had a medical reaction triggered by handling low-grade paper and the
alleged poor air quality in her work area. The City denied reinstatement to the
employee because she could only return to work if she avoided exposure to the
low-grade paper that was causing the chemical reaction. While the City had
stopped using the low-grade paper during the time the employee was on FMLA
leave, the City stated it could not guarantee that the workplace would be safe
for her, given her chemical sensitivity. Following trial, the jury was
instructed that the employee had to prove that she was denied reinstatement or
discharged from employment without reasonable cause after she took family
medical leave. The jury then returned its verdict in favor of the City.
However, since the court's instructions to the jury misstated the burden, the
decision in favor of the employer for the FMLA claim was vacated by the Ninth
Circuit and the case was remanded for a new trial.
The Family and Medical Leave Act provides eligible
employees with up to 12 workweeks (and in some circumstances 26 workweeks) of
unpaid leave for certain family and medical reasons during a 12-month period.
Upon concluding FMLA leave, an employee has the right to return to his or her
job or an equivalent job. However, there are limits to this right. An employee
is entitled to reinstatement only if he or she would have continued to be
employed had FMLA leave not been taken. In other words, an employee is entitled
to any right, benefit or position that he or she would have been entitled to
had the employee not taken leave. Thus, an employee is typically not entitled to
reinstatement if, because of a layoff, reduction in force or other reason, the
employee would not be employed at the time job restoration is sought.
The circuit courts have disagreed as to which party bears
the burden or proof when an employer defends against an interference claim by
asserting one of the limitations discussed above. As discussed in Sanders,
the Eighth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have also reached the same conclusion
as the Ninth Circuit; whereas, the Seventh Circuit has held that the burden of
proof remains with the employee.
In all cases, it is worth bearing in mind that companies
cannot terminate an employee because he or she has taken or will be
taking leave. Another important consideration is that an employee who has
exhausted his or her FMLA leave may be eligible for an ADA accommodation to
return to work. Therefore, if an employee has exhausted his or her FMLA leave
for a serious health condition and cannot return to work immediately or
requires a reasonable accommodation to return, companies should engage in the
interactive process to determine what sort of accommodations are available.
Read more articles on employment law issues
at Employment and the
Law, a blog by Ashley Kasarjian
For more information about LexisNexis
products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.