Employers Reaux the Day They Fail to Accurately Define FMLA Eligibility in Policies

In a previous edition of the Informed Employer, we updated you on the 7^th Circuit's decision in Peters v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. In that case, the 7^th Circuit held that the possibility existed for an employee handbook to make an employee eligible for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave even if he or she were not eligible under the language of the FMLA itself. Picking up where the 7^th Circuit left off, a United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently identified the precise hypothetical scenario contemplated by the 7^th Circuit in Gilead and gave a Plaintiff FMLA rights even when the statute did not cover her. These cases make it clear that employers have an urgent need to review their handbooks and leave policies to ensure that they are accurately stating eligibility and coverage issues.

In Reaux v. Infohealth Management Corp., the employer's handbook provided that all employees who worked at least 1,250 hours during the previous 12-month period "shall be" entitled to FMLA leave. Relying on that language, as well as an assurance from her supervisor that she was approved for FMLA leave, Deborah Reaux began a maternity leave of absence that she thought was protected by the FMLA. However, she was not actually eligible for FMLA leave, and she was fired four days before she was scheduled to return to work.

Reaux sued Infohealth for violating her FMLA rights. Interestingly, she admitted in her complaint that she was technically ineligible for FMLA leave according to the text of the FMLA itself (i.e., Infohealth employed fewer than 50 employees within a 75 mile radius of her worksite—the 50/75 rule). Nonetheless, Reaux argued that Infohealth shouldn't be allowed to argue that she was ineligible for FMLA leave given the language of its handbook and the assurances from her supervisor. Infohealth disagreed and argued that federal law clearly provided that Reaux was not eligible for FMLA leave. Moreover, Infohealth argued that Reaux had no reasonable basis to believe that she was protected by the FMLA because the handbook also reminded employees that their employment was entirely at-will, and subject to termination at any time and for any reason.

The Northern District of Illinois sided with Reaux and held that her situation "fit neatly" into the hypothetical situation laid out by the 7^th Circuit in Gilead: "Infohealth allegedly told Reaux that she could take FMLA leave, Reaux did so, and was fired while she was still on leave." Given that situation, Infohealth was stopped from arguing that Reaux was not eligible for FMLA leave.

These decisions are clear directives for employers to review their handbooks and leave policies to ensure they are properly defining eligibility requirements and not inadvertently creating coverage where it does not exist. For more information you may contact Ryan Poor or any member of our Labor and Employment Group.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice.  The reader must consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader's specific circumstances.