The female school bookkeeper and treasurer brought this action against: her employer school District; the school superintendent; the school district's attorney; the school board; and members of the school board in their individual capacities. She alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601.
In 2004, a truly terrible year for bookkeeper, both of her parents became terminally ill, and bookkeeper attempted to care for them at home. Her father died at home on May 23, 2004, and in a tragic sequence of events, five other family members or close friends passed away that year. On May 31, 2004, her mother came home from the hospital and needed constant care.
The bookkeeper thereafter often missed work to care for her mother at home. Her immediate supervisor was aware that she was taking time off from work in order to care for her ailing parents, and he gave her permission to do so. In the 2004 fiscal year, bookkeeper was absent a total of 72.5 out of a possible 242 workdays. During this time, with the encouragement of her supervisor, Ms. Lewis took much of her bookkeeping work home with her and worked whenever she could, including in the evenings or on weekends. She was able to get much of the bookkeeping work done that way. According to her supervisor, however, her "flex-time" schedule began to be a problem for the school district because other employees were forced to alter their schedules to cover for bookkeeper, and she was not available during regular work hours to answer questions from employees or vendors. The employer demoted the bookkeeper.
The bookkeeper sued, saying she was being demoted for taking FMLA leave, which is against regulations.
The employer said, “The decision to demote the employee was based strictly on her reduced productivity, not because she took FMLA leave.”
Who Won?
The employee.
The court found that the FMLA establishes two categories of protections for employees. First, the Act provides eligible employees the right to take unpaid leave for a period of up to twelve work weeks in any twelve-month period because of a serious health condition, including the serious health condition of a family member. King v. Preferred Technical Group, 166 F.3d 887, 891 (7th Cir. 1999). After the period of qualified leave expires and the employee returns to work, she is entitled to be reinstated to her former position or to an equivalent position with the same benefits and terms of employment. Id.; 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a). The FMLA makes it "unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided" under the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1).
In addition to the substantive guarantees contemplated by the Act, the FMLA also affords employees protection in the event that they are retaliated against because of their choice to exercise their rights under the Act. King, 166 F.3d at 891 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) & (2)). Specifically, "[a]n employer is prohibited from discriminating against employees . . . who have used FMLA leave." Id. (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c)). On appeal, bookkeeper does not allege that the defendants interfered with her substantive rights under the FMLA; she contends only that she was retaliated against for taking FMLA-protected leave.
The most prominent direct evidence proffered by bookkeeper is supervisor’s letter informing her of the District's decision to replace her as bookkeeper. The letter offered only one justification for the District's action: "It was determined that you miss too much work to meet the essential functions of your present assignment." Furthermore, according to bookkeeper’s sworn affidavit, supervisor explicitly told her that the school board had decided to demote her because of her absenteeism. These statements, made by the District's superintendent on behalf of the District itself, are, when read in context, direct evidence of an impermissible motivation for her loss of the bookkeeper position.
The court used a simple test: Would the employee have been demoted had she not taken FMLA leave? The judge’s answer was “no,” meaning the company violated the law.
Date: 04-26-2008
Case Style: Debra L. Lewis v. School District #70, et al.
Case Number: 06-4435
Judge: Ripple
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on appeal from the Southern District of Illinois, St. Clair County
