In Kliskey v Making Opportunity Count, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that an employee could not show illegal retaliation or interference under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) when she lost group health plan coverage during FMLA leave for failing to make required employee contributions.
Law. The FMLA provides employees with two 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 any right provided by the FMLA.
Facts. An employee requested and was granted FMLA leave to care for her daughter. She later claimed that she was not allowed to collect either vacation or sick leave pay during her leave and that her employer gave her an ultimatum to return to work after the FMLA leave period expired or be terminated. When she did not immediately return from FMLA leave she was terminated.
The employee subsequently claimed that the employer terminated her group health plan coverage during the FMLA leave period. She then sued for both interference and retaliation under the FMLA’s provisions.
District Court. The court began its ruling by noting that to state a retaliation claim, the employee must plausibly plead that “(1) she availed herself of a protected FMLA right; (2) she was ‘adversely affected by an employment decision;’ and (3) ‘there was a causal connection between [her] protected conduct and the adverse employment action.’” For purposes of a retaliation claim, adverse employment actions are those which “a reasonable employee would [find to be] materially adverse in the sense that [they] would dissuade the employee from taking FMLA leave.”
In addition, prior cases had determined that: “[T]he FMLA and its accompanying regulations make it unlawful for any employer to, among other things: (1) ‘interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise’ of any FMLA right; or (2) retaliate or ‘discriminat[e] against employees…who have used FMLA leave.’”
The court then noted that, with regards to her termination, the employee had told her employer that she “was unable to return to work at the conclusion of FMLA leave.” It ruled that when an employee affirmatively states that she cannot return to work at the end of her FMLA leave, it constitutes a voluntary resignation, not illegal FMLA interference or retaliation.
In addition, even if the employee was unable to return after the period of FMLA leave, she had no right to reinstatement as a matter of law. Once an employee exhausts her FMLA leave, as was the case here, the employer has no obligation under the statute to extend additional leave, even if the employee remains unable to work.
With regards to termination of health care coverage, the court said that the employee’s claim fails simply because she failed to pay the required employee health plan contributions during her leave. Under the FMLA, employees are required to continue paying their portion of health insurance premiums while on leave. Enforcing regulations provide that “any share of group health plan premiums which had been paid by the employee prior to FMLA leave must continue to be paid by the employee during the FMLA period,” regardless of whether the employee continues to be paid. The court thus concluded that the termination or suspension of her group heath care coverage was also not FMLA retaliation or interference.
The court therefore ruled in the employer’s favor and dismissed the case.