The Wagner Law Group | Est. 1996

Sophisticated Legal Solutions And Boutique-Style Service

Jury Must Make Factual Determinations in FMLA Lawsuit

by | Jul 18, 2024 |

In Crispell v. FCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that a jury must decide whether an employee’s failure to follow her employer’s leave procedures was due to “unusual circumstances,” thereby permitting her to sue the employer for a violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

Law.  The FMLA entitles eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks’ unpaid leave, including intermittent leave: (i) for one’s own serious health condition; (ii) to care for a seriously ill or injured spouse or dependent; (iii) for the birth, adoption or placement of a child; or (iv) to deal with “exigencies” related to their spouse’s military deployment.  It also provides employees with up to 26 weeks’ unpaid leave to care for a spouse who has a military service-related illness or injury.

Under the FMLA, an employer may require that an employee follow its customary practices for requesting leave.  Discipline resulting from the employer’s failure to do so typically does not constitute interference with FMLA rights unless the employee can show unusual circumstances.

Generally, an employee must give 30 days’ advance notice for foreseeable leave, but if 30 days’ notice is not possible, e.g., because of a lack of knowledge of approximately when leave will be required to begin, a change in circumstances, or a medical emergency, notice must be given “as soon as practicable.”

Facts.  The employee suffered from major depression, mood swings, and anxiety, which qualified her to take FMLA leave.  Her psychiatrist submitted annual reports to the employer explaining that the employee’s symptoms would incapacitate her on an intermittent basis.

The employer’s leave policy required the employee to report all absences and tardiness in accordance with its mandatory Call-in Procedure, which required a call-in 30 minutes before an employee’s start time.  The employee was told that “[a] failure to properly report any absence or tardy from work may result in disciplinary action, up to and including discharge.”  When the employee repeatedly failed to make the required call-ins and did not give the employer what it considered to be a satisfactory explanation for these failures, she was terminated.

She then sued in district court, charging the employer with violations of the FMLA, claiming that her failure to follow the employer’s leave procedures was due to “unusual circumstances.”  However, the district court dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the employee had not shown that the employer’s denials of FMLA leave were a pretext for unlawful retaliation.

Appeals Court.  The Court began its analysis by noting that the FMLA regulations say that “an employee must comply with the employer’s usual and customary notice and procedural requirements for requesting leave, absent unusual circumstances.”  The employer’s thirty-minute rule complied with the FMLA requirements because it made exceptions for unusual circumstances.

However, it said the district court was in error when it made a factual determination as to whether the employee had submitted evidence that constituted unusual circumstances.  It noted that a jury must make this factual determination and a reasonable juror could find that “unusual circumstances” existed that excused her from the employer’s thirty-minute rule.  “Because material disputes of fact exist about whether [the employee’s] failure to call 30 minutes in advance of her tardies was due to unusual circumstances…her FMLA interference claim must be resolved by a jury.”

Based on the foregoing, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals returned the matter to the district court so that a jury could make a factual determination on whether unusual circumstances applied.