Megan K. Mechak
Wed, 06/08/2022
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which serves the areas of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, ruled unanimously that an employer violates the Family and Medical Leave Act by discouraging workers from exercising their rights under the statute, even if the employer does not deny leave requests outright.
In Ziccarelli v. Dart, Case No. 19-3435 (June 1, 2022), the appellate court considered whether a correctional officer who alleges his employer told him that he would be subject to discipline for taking FMLA leave, discouraging him from even requesting the leave, could maintain a claim for FMLA interference against his employer. The Court noted that a claim for FMLA interference requires plaintiff to prove five elements. Slip op. at 9. The first four elements, according to the Court, were relatively straightforward: (i) the employee was eligible for FMLA protections; (ii) the employer was covered by the FMLA; (iii) the employee was entitled to leave under the FMLA; and (iv) the employee provided sufficient notice of intent to take FMLA leave. Lutes v. United Trailers, Inc., 950 F.3d 359, 363 (7th Cir. 2020).
The court’s use of varying language with respect to the fifth element, however, led to the dispute at issue. In some cases, the court required an employee to prove that “his employer denied him FMLA benefits to which he was entitled,” while in other cases, the court required the employee to show that “his employer denied or interfered with FMLA benefits to which he was entitled.”
The FMLA makes it unlawful for a covered employer to “interfere with, restrain, or deny” an eligible employee’s exercise or attempt to exercise FMLA rights. After reviewing the statutory text, the context of the law, including applicable regulations, and case law, the court concluded, “[The statute] is not ambiguous on this issue—denial of FMLA benefits is not required to demonstrate an FMLA interference violation. Interference or restraint alone is enough to establish a violation, and a remedy is available under [the FMLA] if the plaintiff can show prejudice from the violation.” Slip Op. at 18. In applying its conclusion to the facts of the case, the court noted, “[t]hreatening to discipline an employee for seeking or using FMLA leave to which he is entitled clearly qualifies as interference with FMLA rights.” Id. at 20.
The appellate court’s decision confirms that an employee need not apply for FMLA leave that is denied to state a claim for interference – an employer interferes with an employee’s FMLA rights if it intimidates the employee from seeking leave to which they are entitled.
MSE is dedicated to protecting the rights of working people. If you believe your employer has interfered with your FMLA rights, contact us at info@mselaborlaw.com.
