FMLA Violated By Retroactive Termination of Medical Insurance

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) prohibits an employer from interfering with or retaliating against an employee who asserts or exercises her rights to take leave from work under the FMLA. Both these prohibitions were violated by the employer’s retroactive termination of an employee’s medical insurance the Seventh Circuit has ruled in Ryl-Kuchar v. Care Centers, Inc., Nos. 08-2688, 08-2823 (May 11, 2009).

Kathleen Ryl-Kuchar had worked for Care Centers, Inc. for over 17 years when she became pregnant with triplets in late 2002. She worked all the way up to delivery on July 17, 2003, although during the later part of her pregnancy, she worked from home and in some weeks less than 35 hours per week. Ryl-Kuchar returned to work right after delivery but began FMLA leave a short time later. A few weeks later, she elected to terminate her employment effective October 1.

About six weeks after resigning, Ryl-Kuchar learned that her health insurance had been retroactively cancelled on June 15 — just at the point where, as the court observed, she really began “piling up” the medical bills related to her pregnancy. The employer asserted that it had retroactively cancelled her medical insurance on the grounds that she had become ineligible for the coverage by having worked for less than 35 hours some weeks prior to delivery.

Ryl-Kuchar sued under the FMLA and claimed that the retroactive cancellation of her medical insurance was based on her decision to take FMLA leave. She presented evidence “that Care Centers was concerned with rising health care costs, as evidenced by an article in the company newsletter,” and that the claim she had become a part-time employee was groundless, since she was a salaried employee and had kept, at all times, the same rate of pay. Only after she took FMLA leave, Ryl-Kuchar pointed out, was there an audit of her payroll records and a claim of “mistake” regarding her eligibility for medical insurance. This proof, the court ruled, was enough to show that Care Centers retaliated against Ryl-Kuchar for taking FMLA leave by retroactively cancelling her medical insurance.

The court also ruled that Ryl-Kuchar had easily show unlawful interference with her rights under the FMLA. The court explained that the FMLA requires that an employee on FMLA leave is “entitled to have health benefits maintained while on leave as if the employee had continued to work instead of taking the leave.”

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Police Sick Leave Suit Granted Class Action Status

A lawsuit challenging the practice of the Columbus, Ohio police department to compel employees returning from sick leave to disclose the condition that necessitated the leave has been granted class action status by a federal district court, the Columbus Dispatch reports, “Sick-Leave Suit Against Police Now Class Action.”  The police department also requires employees returning from Family Medical Leave time to take for a sick family member to disclose the nature of the family member’s illness.  The suit, which was originally filed by six dispatchers, claims that these policies violate the HIPAA, the federal medical privacy law, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). 

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Retaliation Against Employee Taking Family Medical Leave Held Unlawful

Retaliation against an employee for taking leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is unlawful, the Sixth Circuit has ruled in Bryant v. Dollar General Corp. (No. 07-5006 decided August 15, 2008).   The court affirmed a jury verdict for a fired employee.

The employer, Dollar General, argued that the “FMLA does not bar an employer from firing an employee because that employee took FMLA leave,”  a contention that was soundly rejected.  First, the “overwhelming consensus of the case law .. as well as the nature of the statutory scheme and the FMLA’s legislative history” weighed “strongly in favor of rejecting” Dollar General’s argument.  Second, “any ‘right’ to take unpaid leave would be utterly meaningless if the statute’s bar against discrimination failed to prohibit employers from considering an employee’s FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment decisions.”  Third, adopting Dollar General’s position would run counter to principles of statutory construction that caution against absurd results. 

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com