Family and Medical Leave Act: "Magic Words" Not Required to Invoke FMLA Rights (Dotson v. Pfizer, March 4, 2009, 4th Circuit)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's recent decision in Dotson v. Pfizer explains that Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") rights are triggered by an employee's request for leave covered by the FMLA, without regard to whether the employee mentions "FMLA" or uses any other term of art in the statute. Since the Fourth Circuit decides appeals from Virginia federal courts, the decision is particularly important for Virginia employers.
In this case, employee James Dotson (Dotson) was awarded more than $722,000 on his FMLA interference and retaliation claims, including $333,305 in statutory liquidated damages, $375,000 in attorneys' fees, and $14,265 in costs. Each party appealed different rulings of the trial court. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment, except as to the trial court's denial of pre-judgment interest. Holding that pre-judgment interest on FMLA damage awards is mandatory, the Fourth Circuit remanded the case, directing the trial court to recalculate Dotson's damage and fee awards to include pre-judgment interest.
The following arguments made by Pfizer and rejected by the Fourth Circuit provide clear guidance to employers that the burden is on employers -- not employees -- to understand and properly apply the FMLA:
FMLA Intermittent Adoption Leave -- Agreement by Acquiescence: Under the FMLA, eligible employees may take 12 weeks of leave during any 12-month period "[b]ecause of the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care." For adoption or foster-care leave, an employee is not entitled to intermittent leave "unless the employee and the employer . . . agree otherwise."According to Dotson, Pfizer interfered with his FMLA rights by asking him to work while traveling to Russia on adoption leave, a day that should have been FMLA-protected. On appeal, Pfizer argued that because Dotson had taken a prior FMLA adoption-related leave, the second leave request was not FMLA-protected because Pfizer had not expressly agreed to grant Dotson intermittent (separate blocks of) leave for the adoption.
The Fourth Circuit held that by not denying Dotson's separate leave requests, Pfizer had effectively agreed to grant Dotson intermittent leave under the FMLA. Pfizer's interference with Dotson's intermittent leave therefore created a legal claim.
FMLA Retaliation for FMLA-Qualifying Leave-- Dotson claimed that Pfizer discharged him in retaliation for exercising his FMLA rights. On appeal, Pfizer argued that it could not have engaged in unlawful FMLA retaliation, in part, because Dotson had not notified Pfizer that he was requesting FMLA leave.The Fourth Circuit noted that "employees do not need to invoke the FMLA in order to benefit from its protections," and there is no need for employees to even mention the FMLA. Rather, if an employee states, for example, that leave is needed for birth, adoption, or some other FMLA-covered absence, the burden shifts to the employer to determine whether the FMLA applies. In other words, employees do not have to use any "magic words" to invoke FMLA rights. Because the evidence was sufficient to conclude that Pfizer had terminated Dotson in retaliation for Dotson's exercise of FMLA rights, Pfizer was liable for FMLA retaliation.
Dotson v. Pfizer Inc., March 4, 2009
For more information on FMLA leave or other employment-law matters, contact Lori Searcy at 703-644-4122.
