In Wilkie v. Outokumpo USA, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that an employer can defend itself again claims of Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) violations by demonstrating that it would have terminated the employee regardless of whether he had taken FMLA Leave.
Facts. An employee who had recently taken FMLA leave was terminated after he treated another employee for a medical condition (i.e., work-related injury). The correct course of conduct under the employer’s rules was to immediately notify the employer’s safety team, and to not personally provide medical aid to the injured person. After this violation, the employee was terminated. He sued the employer, among other things, for interference and retaliation. After the lower court dismissed his complaints, he appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
Law. The FMLA provides employees with two types of causes of action against employers. First, its “retaliation” provisions prohibit employers from discharging or discriminating against employees for “opposing any practice made unlawful” by the FMLA. Second, the FMLA’s “interference” provisions make it unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided by the FMLA.
Appeals Court. The Eleventh Circuit noted that to state an FMLA interference claim, an employee may “demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that he was entitled to an FMLA benefit and was denied that benefit.” Employees bringing interference claims are not required to make any showing regarding their employer’s motives. However, where the plaintiff’s claim is that he was unlawfully terminated due to exercising his FMLA rights, the employer can defend itself “by establishing that the employee would have been terminated anyway.”
To state an FMLA retaliation claim, an employee must demonstrate that his employer intentionally discriminated against him by taking an adverse employment action because he exercised his FMLA rights.
The Eleventh Circuit then ruled that the district court properly granted summary judgment in the employer’s favor. With regards to the FMLA interference claim, the Eleventh Circuit concluded the district court accurately found that the employer would have fired the employee regardless of whether he requested FMLA leave. As to his FMLA discrimination claim, the district court accurately determined that the employee could not establish pretext because the employee could not demonstrate that his termination for failure to follow procedures was false and the real reason was discriminatory.