Legal Advocacy
Court Upholds Enforcement of Family/Medical Leave Act
A federal appeals court agreed with AARP’s “friend of the court” brief and ruled in favor of a worker fired after she sought to invoke her statutorily-protected medical leave rights.
The law
The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees workers employed by large companies up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for their own or family medical issues, as well as the right to continue receiving employment benefits (including health insurance) during their leave. Family and medical leave is vitally important to older employees for two reasons. First, they and their spouses become more prone to illness as they age. Second, studies show that workers age 50+ have a harder time than younger workers finding another job if terminated by their employer.
Recognizing these difficulties, the U.S. Department of Labor (DoL) in its regulations implementing FMLA specifically stated that retaliation by employers against employees seeking to enforce their FMLA-guaranteed rights falls within the prohibitions of the statute.
The dispute
Martha Bryant, who has a history of diabetes and high blood pressure, began work as a computer programming analyst for Dollar General Corporation in 2001. Her health, which was stable for years, began to suffer complications in 2004. In May of that year she requested a FMLA leave of absence. She was given five days off of work on her FMLA leave, but four days after she returned, she was notified that her employment was being terminated due to a history of job performance issues.
Bryant believed the specific reasons given for her allegedly poor performance were merely a pretext – and she cited the fact that she was terminated almost immediately following her exercise of FMLA rights. Among other evidence she presented was a supervisor’s comment that “Because of your health, I don’t think you can do the job.”
The trial court ruled that Dollar General had improperly terminated her employment in retaliation for her having tried to exercise her rights under the FMLA. She obtained a verdict for $74,000 which was, in accordance with the statute, doubled by the trial court when it ruled that the employer had willfully violated the law.
Dollar General appealed, arguing that the FMLA does not address retaliation, but merely “interference” with exercise of rights. Dollar General noted that since Ms. Bryant took the FMLA leave, then her rights to do so were not impeded. As for the DoL anti-retaliation regulations, the employer argued that they were an invalid expansion of the agency’s authority and unsupported by the statute.
Attorneys from AARP Foundation Litigation filed AARP’s “friend of the court” brief in Bryant v. Dollar General Corp. The brief reviewed prior court decisions in similar cases, regulations issued by the Department of Labor implementing the FMLA (which clearly spell out prohibitions against retaliation), and Congressional intent in enacting the FMLA. If employees can be retaliated against for seeking to enforce their rights, then the FMLA is of no practical effect whatsoever. As the brief noted, the anti-retaliation provision is supported by both law and logic because it “merely ensures that employees are in fact guaranteed the leave to which they are entitled.”
The ruling
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with Ms. Bryant and AARP. Citing what it called “the overwhelming consensus” of decisions by other courts considering this question, as well as the plain text of the FMLA statute itself, the court rejected Dollar General’s argument that the law did not afford the protections Bryant invoked. “Any ‘right’ to take unpaid leave would be utterly meaningless if the statute’s bar against discrimination failed to prohibit employers from considering an employee’s FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment decisions,” the court wrote. “Dollar General’s reading of the statute would essentially render the FMLA a nullity.”
AARP strongly supported the FMLA when it was debated in Congress and is working to ensure that the terms of and enforcement of that painstakingly crafted law are not eroded.
Contact person:
Jay Sushelsky
jsushelsky@aarp.org
(202) 434-2060
October 24, 2008