Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
Third Circuit Holds an Employer's Honest Belief that Employee Was Misusing FMLA Leave Can Defeat FMLA Retaliation Claim
Practical Law Legal Update w-005-7499 (Approx. 5 pages)
Third Circuit Holds an Employer's Honest Belief that Employee Was Misusing FMLA Leave Can Defeat FMLA Retaliation Claim
by Practical Law Labor & Employment
| Law stated as of 07 Feb 2017 • USA (National/Federal) |
In Capps v. Mondelez Global, LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that an employer did not retaliate against an employee in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) because it held a good-faith belief that the employee was misusing his FMLA leave.
On January 30, 2017, in Capps v. Mondelez Global, LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that an employer's honest, albeit mistaken, belief that an employee is misusing FMLA leave constitutes a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating an employee and therefore is sufficient to defeat an FMLA retaliation claim. The court also held that a request for intermittent FMLA leave can, under certain circumstances, constitute a request for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. ( (3d Cir. Jan. 30, 2017).)
Background
Fredrick Capps worked as a mixer for Mondelez. Mondelez maintained an FMLA policy as well as a "Dishonest Acts" policy that prohibited employees from engaging in "dishonesty" both "during or after working hours." The policy provided that an employee who was "found guilty of a dishonest act would be subject to dismissal."
Capps suffered from a blood disorder that required him to have hip replacement in 2003. After the surgery, Capps was certified for intermittent FMLA leave and was recertified for intermittent leave every six months throughout his employment with Mondelez.
On February 14, 2013, Capps was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) and put in jail overnight. The next morning, February 15, 2013, Capps was released from jail and informed Mondelez that he would be using FMLA leave that day (his shift was due to begin at 1:00 p.m.). Capps ultimately pled guilty to DUI and spent several days in jail in August 2013. (Capps was recertified for FMLA leave from July 31, 2013 through January 30, 2014.)
In 2014, Mondelez became aware of Capps's DUI conviction, reviewed the criminal court docket, and identified that Capps had used FMLA leave on the day of his arrest, the day after his arrest, and other days that coincided with dates listed in the court docket. In February 2014, Mondelez suspended Capps pending an investigation. Although Capps submitted documentation from his doctor to support his FMLA leave on those dates, Mondelez found the documentation insufficient. On March 21, 2014, Mondelez terminated Capps's employment based on the "Dishonest Acts" policy.
Following the termination of Capps's employment:
- Mondelez hired an investigator, who found that on February 15, 2013, the day after Capps's arrest, he was released from police custody at 6:00 a.m. (7 hours before his shift was due to begin).
- Capps filed a grievance form claiming that his employment was "unlawfully terminated."
- Mondelez offered Capps reinstatement without back pay on April 28, 2014.
- Capps rejected Mondelez's reinstatement offer.
In July 2014, Capps sued Mondelez in federal district court alleging FMLA retaliation, FMLA interference, and failure to accommodate his disability under the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment to Mondelez on all claims, finding that:
- Mondelez terminated Capps based on its honest belief that Capps misrepresented his FMLA leave, and that was sufficient to defeat Capps's FMLA retaliation claim.
- Capps failed to show that he was denied an FMLA benefit in support of his FMLA interference claim.
- Capps never made an accommodation request under the ADA.
Capps appealed.
Outcome
The Third Circuit:
- Affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Mondelez on all claims.
- Held that:
- an employer's honest belief, even if mistaken, that its employee was misusing FMLA leave can defeat an FMLA retaliation claim; and
- a request for intermittent FMLA leave can constitute a request for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA (although in this case there was insufficient evidence to show that Mondelez failed to provide Capps any requested reasonable accommodation).
The Third Circuit noted that:
- Courts view FMLA retaliation claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework in which:
- an employee must first make a prima facie of discrimination;
- an employer must then articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for taking an adverse action against the employee; and
- the burden shifts back to the employee to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer's articulated reason was a pretext for discrimination.
- To make a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, an employee must show that:
- he invoked his right to take FMLA-qualifying leave;
- he suffered an adverse employment action; and
- the adverse action was related to or caused by the employee invoking FMLA rights.
- FMLA retaliation claims require proof that an employer had "retaliatory intent" (Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294, 301 (3d Cir. 2012)).
- Various circuit courts have held that an employer's honest belief (even if mistaken) that an employee is misusing FMLA leave is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating the employee (see Kariotis v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 131 F.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir. 1997); Scruggs v. Carrier Corp., 688 F.3d 821, 827 (7th Cir. 2012); Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996, 1002-03, 1007 (8th Cir. 2012); Medley v. Polk Co., 260 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (10th Cir. 2001)).
- A claim for failure to accommodate under the ADA requires an employee to show that:
- he had a disability of which his employer was aware;
- he requested an accommodation;
- the employer did not make a good faith effort to provide the accommodation; and
- he could have been reasonably accommodated.
The Third Circuit found that:
- Even assuming Capps could establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, Mondelez satisfied its burden of showing that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Capps based on its belief that Capps was:
- misusing his FMLA leave; and
- acting dishonestly about his leave in violation of Mondelez's Dishonest Acts policy.
- Mondelez provided clear evidence that its honest belief that Capps misused his FMLA leave and violated Mondelez's "Dishonest Acts" policy was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Capps, including evidence that Mondelez:
- continuously recertified Capps for intermittent FMLA leave during his lengthy employment following hip surgery in 2003;
- never denied Capps's requests for FMLA leave or failed to return him to work after he took approved FMLA leave;
- showed no discriminatory animus toward Capps based on him taking FMLA leave until becoming aware of his DUI arrest and conviction and reviewing the criminal docket record against the dates Capps took FMLA leave during the relevant period; and
- honestly believed, based on reviewing the relevant records, that Capps's DUI arrest date and court dates coincided with dates in which Capps took FMLA leave.
- There was insufficient evidence to conclude that Mondelez's legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for terminating Capps was pretextual.
- Capps's FMLA interference claim failed because Capps failed to show that he was denied any benefit to which he was entitled under the FMLA.
- Capps's ADA failure to accommodate claim failed because even if his requests for intermittent FMLA leave constituted requests for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA (which is possible as a matter of law), Mondelez consistently approved Capps's FMLA leave requests and therefore provided the accommodation that Capps requested.
Practical Implications
The Third Circuit's decision in Capps illustrates that absent any indication of an employer's discriminatory intent, an employer's reasonable belief, even if mistaken, that an employee misused FMLA leave can be a potent defense to an FMLA retaliation claim. Although it is not entirely clear whether Capps misused his FMLA leave, Mondelez believed he did and had a reasonable basis for its belief.
Subsequent to terminating Capps's employment, Mondelez initiated an investigation revealing that Capps may not have misused his FMLA leave, and then offered to reinstate Capps (an offer he rejected). These facts suggest that Mondelez may have recognized its mistake and sought to insulate itself from an FMLA retaliation claim. However, the Third Circuit apparently did not consider these facts in its analysis of the FMLA retaliation claim.
Employers should:
- Exercise caution when terminating or taking an adverse action against an employee who is taking or has recently returned from FMLA leave.
- Investigate and carefully document any incidents in which an employee allegedly misuses FMLA leave. This documentation could prove vital in defending against an FMLA retaliation claim brought by an employee who suffered an adverse action based on perceived misuse of FMLA leave.