FMLA Interference Clarified by Appellate Court

The Family Medical Leave Act is a federal law which provides up to 12 weeks of leave for qualified employees. On September 9, 2024, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction in New York, issued a decision clarifying when employers can be liable for interfering with employees’ FMLA rights. Today’s employment law blog discusses this decision concerning the FMLA, issued in the case Kemp v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

The FMLA allows qualified employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave from work, to care for themselves, or a family member, who has a serious medical condition. The law protects the employee’s job, meaning the employer must maintain the employee’s job while the employee is out on leave. In other words, when the employee’s leave is complete, the employer must generally allow the employee to return to work.

The FMLA specifically prohibits employers from doing three things: interfering with, restraining, or denying an employee’s rights under the law. The principal question in Kemp was whether an employer interferes with an employee’s FMLA rights when it discourages, but does not deny, an employee’s request for FMLA leave. Indeed, employers often try to escape liability by arguing that it ultimately granted leave, even if it initially tried to deny it, or discourage the employee from taking it. The Second Circuit answered the question in no uncertain terms: Yes.

In Kemp, the employee argued that the employer discouraged her from using FMLA leave. The employer countered that ultimately, it approved the employee’s FMLA leave, therefore, it did not violate the statute.

The trial court agreed with the employer. The court held that to prove a violation of the FMLA, the employee needed to prove that she was denied benefits to which she was entitled. Since Kemp’s FMLA leave was approved, her FMLA claim had to be dismissed.

The appellate court disagreed. It noted that its prior decisions held that an employer can violate the FMLA by either denying benefits or otherwise interfering with a benefit. Kemp solidified the legal theory that an employer can be liable for interfering with FMLA benefits, even when it ultimately approves FMLA leave.

Unfortunately for Kemp, the favorable decision on the substantive FMLA claim did not save her case. Ultimately, the appellate court ruled that the trial’s court decision to dismiss the claim should be upheld because the statute of limitations prohibited Kemp’s claim.

In Kemp, the Second Circuit ruled on another interesting question — when does the statute of limitations begin to run for claims under the New York State Human Rights law. The statute of limitations sets forth how long a plaintiff has to file a particular claim. For claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, the statute of limitations is three years. This means that claims must be filed within three years of the date from when they accrue.

The Kemp case had to determine the date when Human Rights Law claims begin to accrue. The question was whether they accrue from the date the employee receives notice that some adverse employment action will be taken, or the date when the action begins effective. The Second Circuit held that the claims accrue on the date the employee has notice of the employers “official position” on the employment decision. In Kemp, the employee did not file her claims before the statute of limitations expired, so the claims were dismissed.

Navigating the complex world of employee leave under the FMLA can be daunting. Additionally, available leave programs under New York State law add another layer of complexity. If you have questions about the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or the New York Paid Family Leave law, contact a New York employment lawyer at (631) 352-0050 or visit our website at http://linycemploymentlaw.com.