October 23, 2014
Earlier this month, the United States District Court, S.D. Ohio ruled that an employer may not rely upon an honest belief that an employee was abusing FMLA leave as a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to terminate an employee. The honest belief rule is ordinarily available to employers as a defense against claims of employment discrimination. As long as an employer has an honest belief in its proffered nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment action, the employee cannot establish pretext on the grounds that the nondiscriminatory reason is shown to be incorrect. Tillman v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 545 Fed. App’x 340, 349 (6th Cir. 2013). Though the Sixth Circuit has not yet determined whether the honest belief rule is a defense to FMLA interference claims, the Southern District of Ohio has decided that it is not.
In Yontz v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., the employer hired Yontz in 2005 as a Package Machine Operator. No. 3:13-cv-066, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145666 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 10, 2014). At the time of his hiring, Yontz notified Dole that he would need two weeks off in May for an annual family vacation in Florida. The following year, in 2006, Yontz requested, and was granted, two weeks of unpaid leave for the family vacation in May. In 2007, Yontz did not have sufficient paid time off to take a two week vacation, so he was permitted to use unpaid leave for three days. In 2008, Yontz’s request for a two-week leave was denied. Yontz went on the two-week family vacation anyway and was suspended five days for insubordination. In 2009, Yontz was granted a one-week leave of absence for the family vacation. In February 2010, Yontz’s request for unpaid leave for the family vacation was denied on the grounds that vacation was not a subject for a leave of absence and that Dole would no longer approve such requests.
Around the same time that his unpaid leave request was denied in 2010, Yontz submitted the appropriate Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) forms to take eight weeks of paternity leave to care for his child and/or wife who was having a C-Section birth. Though members of Dole’s human resources department were suspicious of the timing of Yontz’s FMLA leave request, he had provided the appropriate documentation from his wife’s physician, and Dole approved his FMLA leave.
In March 2010, Yontz’s wife gave birth to a daughter with Down syndrome. When Yontz’s initial eight weeks of FMLA leave ended in May, he requested additional intermittent FMLA leave to care for his daughter. His daughter’s physician certified that Yontz would need two to five days each month to care for her, including medical evaluations and episodic flare-ups.
In 2011, Yontz again requested leave for his family vacation in Florida. His supervisor approved a portion of his requested leave, ending May 18, 2011. While Yontz and his family were in Florida, his daughter became sick. The family decided to wait a few days before driving back, and Yontz notified Dole that he would be using intermittent FMLA leave on May 19-21 to care for his daughter. Once Yontz returned, he was scheduled on-call for May 23, but he again notified Dole that he would not be able to work if called, because his daughter was still ill and he had no alternative child care. Yontz returned to work on May 25, at which time a Human Resources officer requested documentation to substantiate that his daughter had been ill on May 19-21 and 23. Yontz stated that his daughter had not seen a doctor when she had been ill, so he could not provide any documentation from a physician. When Yontz was unable to provide the requested documentation, his requests for four days of FMLA leave were denied. He was suspended on June 16, 2011, for unexcused absences. On June 24, 2011, Dole terminated Yontz.
Yontz filed a complaint against Dole on the grounds of FMLA interference and retaliation. Dole moved for summary judgment. Yontz argued that he had presented a prima facie claim of FMLA interference: he was eligible for FMLA; Dole was an employer subject to FMLA; he was entitled to leave; he gave Dole notice of his intent to take leave on May 19-21 and 23; and Dole denied him FMLA benefits to which he was entitled. Dole defended its decision to terminate Yontz on the grounds that it reasonably believed that he misused FMLA leave in order to prolong his vacation. Yontz had not provided a doctor’s note and his daughter’s illness had coincided with his family’s annual vacation plans. However, the federal district court was not persuaded by Dole’s argument. The court held that “Dole may not use an honest mistaken belief that Yontz misused FMLA leave as a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for his termination.” According to the court, Dole was not protected by the honest belief defense because a reasonable juror could not find that Dole made a reasonably informed and considered decision before terminating Yontz. Dole had approved Yontz’s request for intermittent FMLA leave and therefore was aware of his need to care for his daughter. Dole’s motion for summary judgment was denied.
For more information on the Family Medical Leave Act or other human resource needs please contact Clemans Nelson toll free at (800)-282-0787 or at one of the following regional offices:
Akron: 330-785-7700 Cincinnati: 513-583-9221 Dublin: 614-923-7700 Lima: 419-227-4945