Gibbons Law Alert
A Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) plaintiff’s leave was proven fraudulent through her Facebook postings, resulting in summary judgment for her employer, dismissing her complaint. The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan concluded that the employer’s reason for her termination was legitimate and unrelated to her exercise of FMLA rights.
Are employers required to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee to facilitate his or her return to the same or equivalent position at the conclusion of an FMLA leave? According to a recent decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the answer is no, provided the employee is unable to perform the essential functions of his job position. The case, Macfarlan v. Ivy Hill, provides important guidance for employers who must make such determinations upon an employee’s return from FMLA-protected leave.
Without any substantive changes, new updated model Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) forms have been issued by the United States Department of Labor (DOL) website and are available on the DOL website (in the section for Wage and Hour Division Forms). Employers using the former model FMLA forms on the DOL website should replace their prior versions, which expired on December 31, 201, with the new versions. Employers using their own FMLA forms should include appropriate language to prevent employee disclosure of genetic information prohibited by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). Such language should generally be included in the employer’s FMLA policies and other employee communications. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations suggest a “safe harbor” notice to include in such communications to effectively lessen the chance of an inappropriate disclosure of genetic information.
The New Jersey Appellate Division’s recent decision in Lapidoth v. Telcordia Techs., Inc., 2011 N.J. Super. LEXIS 103 (App. Div. June 9, 2011) serves as an important reminder that an employer must exercise care in communications with employees regarding leaves of absence to avoid unintended contractual obligations, even when the employer has complied with its statutory obligations.
It is now clear that an employer may be held liable for unlawful discrimination when it unwittingly terminates an employee based on a supervisor’s recommendation or false allegations motivated by discriminatory animus. The United States Supreme Court, in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, No. 09-400, 562 U.S. _(March 1, 2011), resolved a split in the lower courts over the reach of the so-called “cat’s paw” theory of liability, which gets its name from the 17th century fable by French poet Jean de La Fontaine. In the fable, a monkey convinces a cat to remove chestnuts from a fire. The cat complies, pulling out the chestnuts one at a time, burning its paw in the process, as the monkey feasts on the chestnuts. In the employment context, the “cat’s paw” refers to a situation in which a biased subordinate employee, who lacks decision-making authority, uses the final decisionmaker as a dupe to trigger a discriminatory employment action. In Staub, the Court held that if the decision to terminate is based in whole or in part on the malicious recommendation or false allegations from a supervisor who has discriminatory motives, the employer can be held liable under federal statutes that prohibit employment discrimination.
New York State employers who extend funeral or bereavement leave to employees after the death of a relative must, effective October 29, 2010, provide the same leave after the death of a same-sex committed partner. Although this amendment to the New York Civil Rights Law creates no obligation for employers who do not offer funeral or bereavement leave to any employees, it does require a change for the many New York employers who currently provide such leave to various groups of defined relatives, but not to same-sex committed partners. Those policies and related practices should be revised promptly to comply with the new law. Additionally, while the new law does not apply to employers outside New York State, they may want to consider similar revisions for business reasons.