FMLA violation by discouragement.
Employer granted FMLA but was liable
An employer can violate the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) merely by interfering with an employee's use of statutory benefits—even if the employer ultimately grants the benefits to which the employee is entitled.
A manager (“Kemp”) at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, spent most of June 2016 working remotely to take care of her child who had a serious medical condition.
When she returned to the office, her supervisors expressed concern about the amount of time Kemp had been away and limited her to one day of remote work per week. At the same time, however, her supervisor also encouraged Kemp to speak with someone in the Human Resources Department about using paid time off or intermittent FMLA leave, rather than work remotely.
Kemp then applied for intermittent FMLA leave to continue to care for her daughter and Regeneron approved the leave. During this time, conversations began about a possible transition to a role with a similar status and title but with fewer managerial responsibilities for Kemp. Regeneron developed the position and Kemp formally accepted it.
However, she notified her employer that she planned to retire, a decision spurred by Regeneron's refusal to let her work remotely.
Kemp then filed suit, alleging that Regeneron had violated her rights under both the FMLA and New York state law. Although she acknowledged that Regeneron never denied her formal request for FMLA leave to care for her daughter, she argued that the employer's attempts to discourage her from taking FMLA leave and the limitations the company placed on her remote work unlawfully interfered with the exercise of her rights under the statute.
The unanimous federal appellate panel agreed.
Kemp took the position that Regeneron substantially limited her remote workdays and punished her for working remotely, but the court tried to explain that this argument misunderstood the nature of the benefits conferred by the FMLA.
Why it matters: The Second Circuit's opinion provides a valuable lesson for employers that interference with an employee's FMLA benefits can occur without a formal denial. Instead, interference or restraint—even discouragement—is enough to establish a violation of the statute, the federal appellate panel ruled.
Commentary by: Raylea Stelmach
Edited by:
EPSHRM provides content as a service to its readers and members. It does not offer legal advice, and cannot guarantee the accuracy or suitability of its content for a particular purpose.
