The Family and Medical Leave Act can be tricky, complex and, if not administered correctly, expensive for employers.
Last month, a federal court in Massachusetts awarded liquidated damages (double the jury award) to a former employee who the court said was denied rights under the act.
Grace Boadi sued her former employer, an organization providing group homes for mentally challenged individuals, as well as her former manager, claiming that they violated the FMLA when the company terminated her after she was hospitalized due to what was described as a “sudden onset of a mental impairment.”
The employee otherwise qualified for the FMLA in that she worked for the company at least a year, worked 1,250 hours in the preceding 12 months and the company employed 50 or more employees.
Boadi was taken to the hospital by her son due to a mental health emergency. She was then hospitalized in a psychiatric facility for several days, and spent time in hospitals until she was released after 10 days.
During her absence, Boadi’s son spoke to several members of management, including her manager, and human resources, to put the company on notice of his mother’s hospitalization and status. He told all involved that she was hospitalized and was “very sick.” Human resources sent her FMLA paperwork.
After a few days of Ms. Boadi’s son communicating directly with the company, the manager was described as “angry” when talking to the son, asking if Boadi could herself speak. The son said she could, and the manager told the son that she needed to talk directly with Boadi and that he was not to call again on his mother’s behalf.
According to the son, Boadi could speak but she was unintelligible. Thereafter, the manager notified human resources that Boadi abandoned her job because she was a no call/no show and failed to follow call-in procedures by personally calling. The manager failed to notify human resources that Boadi had been hospitalized.
When Boadi told the company she could return to work, she was told she was terminated for violating the no call/no show policy.
Boadi sued pursuant to the FMLA. A federal jury awarded her $142,040 for lost wages benefits.
A federal judge also awarded her “liquidated damages,” concluding that the company did not have good faith in violating the FMLA, and that there was no reasonable basis for the company to believe its actions did not violate the FMLA.
This case has many lessons for employers.
The court first admonished the company for the lack of training of its management and human resources professionals regarding the FMLA.
Because of this lack of training, the manager did everything wrong. She failed to allow the son to provide notice of his mother’s absence, even though the FMLA clearly allows a family member to provide notice, “if the employee is unable to do so personally.”
If the employee is unable to comply with a company’s call-out procedures, the FMLA excuses the employee from complying with the employer’s “usual and customary notice and procedural requires for leave.”
Further, the company failed to engage the employee to find out more information when it was put on notice of a possible serious health condition under the FMLA.
The court also denied a finding of good faith due to the company’s failure to seek legal advice on the matter.
The FMLA is tricky and complicated, and employees must receive everything they are entitled to under the law – nothing more and nothing less.
I tell managers that if they are put on notice of a pregnancy, medical condition or request for an accommodation for religion – managers should do two things – don’t say something stupid and call human resources.
A company of 50 or more employees should have HR, and if not, should seek advice from an attorney.
Organizations that employ 50 or more employees should train human resource professionals to comply with the FMLA and other federal employment laws and train managers to use their human resources partners.
This case cost the company almost $300,000, in addition to paying the attorney fees for both the company and Boadi.
Complying with federal law is cheaper than violating it.