ILNews

7th Circuit affirms firing for non-compliance with FMLA leave policy

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment dismissing a woman’s Family and Medical Leave Act claim against the company that fired her because she didn’t give proper notice for an extension of leave and failed to return to work as expected.

Letecia Brown sued Ford Motor Co. after she was fired for not reporting to work or explaining in writing or by phone why she didn’t come to work following an approved FMLA leave. Brown’s original FMLA leave expired Aug. 28 and she was to return to work the following day. Because she couldn’t get an appointment with a psychiatrist until the day she was to return to work, she didn’t go back to work as expected and failed to properly notify Ford within two days of learning Aug. 21 she had to extend her leave as required by policy.

Brown claimed to speak by phone with a nurse at the plant’s medical clinic on Aug. 30, telling the nurse that her doctor had extended her leave to Sept. 16. Ford had no record of this call and sent her certified mail notifying her that she had five days to return to work or explain why she was absent or else she would be fired. She didn’t pick up the mail and was fired Sept. 11.

She filed several suits against the company, but the only one at issue is her claim Ford interfered with her FMLA rights. The District Court originally denied summary judgment for Ford because it found the Aug. 30 phone call provided sufficient notice of Brown’s intent to extend her FMLA leave because it happened with two working days of the expiration of her original leave. But the court later reconsidered because the FMLA regulations require employees to give notice within one to two working days of learning about the need for leave, and granted judgment in favor of Ford dismissing the claim.

The undisputed facts show Brown learned of her need to extend her FMLA on Aug. 21 but failed to notify Ford, wrote Judge Diane Sykes in Letecia D. Brown v. Automotive Components Holdings, LLC and Ford Motor Co., No. 09-1641. The judges went on to confirm that Ford was well within its rights for FMLA purposes to fire Brown according to its standard leave procedures.

Brown raised three new arguments on appeal, which even if they weren’t waived, would fail, noted Judge Sykes. The court rejected her argument that she complied with FMLA regulations because she provided notice as soon as practicable because Brown didn’t show it was impractical for her to give notice on Aug. 21.

The court wasn’t persuaded by her other arguments either – that Ford’s 5-day quit notice was an explicit waiver of its right to rely on the one or two working days’ notice provision of the FMLA; that by not firing her on the day she failed to return to work, the company waived its right to rely on the FMLA provisions governing notice; and her phone call to the nurse was a request for new FMLA leave instead of an extension of her original leave.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT