|
The Eight Circuit recently issued a decision granting
summary judgment to an employer despite the employer’s alleged failure
to give proper notice of the start and end dates of medical leave. In
Grosenick v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 454 F.3d 832 (8th Cir.
2006), the court made clear that although correspondence may have been
ambiguous, the employee did, in fact, have notice and the ambiguity did
not give rise to an FMLA claim.
Case History and Findings
The plaintiff, Grosenick, was a pharmaceutical sales
representative for SmithKline Beecham Corporation (“Glaxo”) from 1992
until 2002. On July 30, 2001, Grosenick gave notice to Glaxo that she
needed knee surgery. That same day Glaxo provided Grosenick with a form
letter stating that she was entitled to twelve weeks of FMLA leave and
that should her leave extend past twelve weeks within a rolling twelve
month period, the company was entitled to fill or eliminate her
position. In a July 30, 2001 email, Grosenick confirmed that she would
begin leave immediately, although Glaxo did not compute the beginning of
the leave period until August 2, 2001. One month later, Glaxo
officially approved leave through September 20, 2001, later extending
that date to October 10, 2001. Using the August 2 start date, Glaxo
determined that twelve weeks of leave would end on October 24, 2001 and
notified Grosenick of such via phone calls and emails. Grosenick
claimed not to have received several of these notices.
In mid-October, Grosenick notified Glaxo that her surgery
was scheduled for November 20, 2001. On October 21, 2001, she returned
to work for four days without company approval as she had been told by
her doctor that she was unable to work. On October 27, 2001, Glaxo
again extended Grosenick’s leave, providing a letter listing the start
date as August 2, 2001 and a new end date of December 20, 2001. Glaxo
also informed Grosenick that her position was filled and that she was a
“displaced employee.” Per company policy, a displaced employee has 30
days to find a new position. Four days later, after the expiration of
her FMLA leave, she was able to return to work without restrictions.
Grosenick, however, was unable to secure a new position and was
terminated in January.
Grosenick sued, arguing that she did not receive adequate
notice of the dates of her medical leave and that Glaxo improperly
filled her position. The court disagreed, noting that an employee is
not entitled to more than the statutorily prescribed twelve weeks of
leave based solely on the employer’s lack of notice. The court stated
that there was “considerable discussion” between Grosenick and Glaxo
regarding the start date and proper end date of the leave and to state
otherwise would be to ignore the record. Moreover, as Grosenick had
noted in an email the day she was starting leave it was disingenuous for
her to argue lack of notice. On this basis, the court affirmed summary
judgment in favor of Glaxo.
Provide Clear, Written
Notice of Leave Start and End Dates
This case illustrates that
employers should take care to give clear, written notice
to employees, setting forth the start and end dates of FMLA leave to
avoid potential confusion and litigation.
If
you have any questions or need assistance implementing these
suggestions, please contact the Poyner & Spruill LLP attorney with whom
you generally work or Susie
Gibbons at
sgibbons@poynerspruill.com or (919) 783-2813.
|
