Another case of poor employer communication
After over a decade of working for the company, Harold learned he needed open-heart surgery, and told his supervisor, who sent him to HR. Apparently, however, Harold was never given an FMLA designation notice.
The surgery took place, and before he was release from the hospital, he confirmed with HR that he still had a job, as long as he provided release forms.
When Harold did return to work, he provided what he thought was an adequate release to return to work. It was signed by a licensed vocation nurse, however, and not by his doctor. No one at the company suggested that the document was insufficient.
After being back at work for about a month, Harold was terminated. As many irritated former employees do, Harold filed suit.
While the district court found in favor of the employer, the Circuit Court reversed and found in favor of Harold. Here’s why.
There was some confusion as to what HR did. Harold argued that HR provided FMLA certification, and he personally delivered it, completed, to the company. The company’s representative, though, stated that she was unaware of Harold’s impending heart surgery until after he had undergone the surgery. The HR representative maintained that she never received an FMLA certification from Harold.
There was also disagreement as to whether the company offered Harold an alternate position upon his return that he then rejected, or instead simply terminated his employment. Harold argued that the company retaliated against him for taking the FMLA leave.
The employer’s reasons for the termination were inconsistent, and included being laid off for medical reasons, failing to pay insurance premiums, and for failure to produce documentation of a permanent disability. In any case, the employer put forth the following reasons for the termination, and the court’s findings:
| Employer's argument | Why it failed |
| Harold didn't provide a compliant release-to-return-to-work document | Harold provided a release, and the employer did not question it before termination, instead of giving Harold a chance to fix it. |
| Harold’s FMLA leave expired a month before the termination. | The employer didn’t designate the leave, so it had no evidence of when it began or ended. |
| Harold refused to accept an alternative position. | It was unclear whether an offer of another position was even made, much less rejected. |
The court, therefore, concluded that there was enough evidence that the employer’s reasons for terminating Harold were pretext for retaliation based on the FMLA leave.
The employer missteps in this case can be boiled down to unclear communication, including not providing the FMLA notices.
Campos v. Steves & Sons, Incorporated, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 19-51100, August 19, 2021.
