Do Your Homework! Court Says Failure to Research FMLA Shows Lack of Good Faith

February 4, 2009

Doubling the jury’s verdict in a Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) case, a federal court in Pennsylvania has found that an employer’s failure to “take affirmative steps to ascertain the requirements of the law” evidenced a lack of good faith and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to liquidated damages.  Brown v. Nutrition Management Services Co., No. 06-2034 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2009).   

Plaintiff, Melissa Brown, has worked as the food service director of a Pennsylvania nursing home since late-2002.  In August 2004, the nursing home owner entered into a contract with the defendant, Nutrition Management Services Co. (“Nutrition Management”), to provide certain food services.  Nutrition Management hired Ms. Brown.  Two months later, Nutrition Management terminated Ms. Brown after learning she was pregnant. 

The plaintiff sued Nutrition Management asserting, among other claims, that the company interfered with her right to take FMLA leave in connection with her pregnancy by denying her FMLA leave and terminating her employment. 

While an employee must work at least 12 months and 1,250 hours in the 12-month period preceding leave, the jury concluded that Nutrition Management was a successor in interest to the plaintiff’s prior employer under the statute, making her eligible for FMLA leave.  The jury ruled in the plaintiff’s favor on the FMLA claim and awarded her $74,000 in back pay.

After the jury returned its verdict, the plaintiff asked the trial court to award her liquidated damages.  The FMLA entitles a plaintiff to an award of liquidated damages equal to his or her lost compensation award plus interest, unless the employer can show it acted in good faith and “had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation….” 

Nutrition Management argued that it acted in good faith, believing that Ms. Brown was not entitled to FMLA leave because she was a probationary employee who had not worked for the company for at least 12 months.

The court stated that the employer’s “good faith belief [that the plaintiff was ineligible for FMLA benefits] would only be reasonable if it took affirmative steps to determine the legal effect of [her] probationary status.”  It determined that the employer did not act reasonably to determine the plaintiff’s eligibility for FMLA leave.  The court was particularly critical of the determination of the company’s director of human resources, who was an attorney, that Ms. Brown was not entitled to FMLA leave because she was a new employee.  The court pointed out that the employer “presented no evidence that it researched or had an attorney research the requirements of the FMLA, or was otherwise aware of the factors governing whether the FMLA would apply to Brown's request for leave,” including an assessment of whether Nutritional Management could be a successor employer under the FMLA. 

The court awarded the plaintiff liquidated damages in the amount of $80,655.82, which is the sum of $74,000 in back pay and pre-judgment interest of $6,655.82.  In a separate opinion, the court had awarded the plaintiff $145,104 in attorney’s fees and $11,639.81 in costs. 

The Brown decision reminds employers to check the governing law even when the answer to a legal question may seem obvious.  “Each request for FMLA leave should be followed-up on and researched appropriately, including, where necessary, seeking the advice of outside counsel,” advises Frank Alvarez, National Coordinator of Jackson Lewis’ Disability, Leave & Health Management Practice Group.  In this case, a phone call to counsel for guidance might have saved the company $80,000 in liquidated damages.