In the good news category, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot be compelled to give more than 12 weeks of FMLA leave. In a closely divided (5 to 4) decision, the Supreme Court invalidated the regulation that had previously required an employer to give more than 12 weeks of leave when it did not first tell the employee that his leave of absence was covered by the FMLA. In Ragsdale v. Wolverine Worldwide, the employee was diagnosed with cancer and took seven months off. Even after seven months, the employee was unable to return to work and was discharged. Under the regulation, the discharge violated the FMLA because the employee had not been told that her time off counted under the FMLA and therefore she was entitled up to an additional 12 weeks. Because employers are required to inform employees of their FMLA leave, the regulation had penalized employers by mandating that the 12-week period did not begin to run until employees were so informed. The result of the regulation was that employers could be compelled to provide more than the statutory 12-week maximum leave, and therefore the Supreme Court ruled the regulation invalid.
In another divided decision (with five opinions from nine judges), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the employer was not required by the ADA to transfer a disabled employee into another job when other employees with greater seniority had priority. In US Airways v. Barnett, the Court ruled that the company's seniority policy trumped the right of the disabled employee under the ADA to be transferred into a vacant position. The Court held that a seniority policy "will prevail in the run of cases" because of the importance of seniority to employee-management relations. While the seniority policy in question was not required by a labor agreement, the employer was entitled to enforce its policy so long as it was regularly followed. The Court, however, also held that under "special circumstances" a disabled worker may be entitled to an exception to a seniority policy. The Court explained that if an employer does not always follow its own seniority policy, it would not be "an undue hardship" to make an exception for a disabled employee.
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the ADA does not require an employer to hire an individual when the conditions of the job would pose a "direct threat" to the individual's own health. In Chevron USA v. Echazabal, the company refused to hire the plaintiff because he had a liver condition that would be exacerbated by exposure to toxins at an oil refinery. The plaintiff claimed that Chevron's refusal to hire him violated the ADA despite the risk posed by the job to his own health. The ADA states an employer need not hire an individual who would "pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace." Because toxins at the refinery posed a threat only to the plaintiff's own health, he argued he was entitled to the job under the ADA. The Court ruled that the ADA could be read broadly enough to protect employers from having to hire persons when they pose a direct threat to themselves, not just to other workers.
In the bad news category, the Tenth Circuit (which has jurisdiction over Utah) recently applied the FMLA and ADA quite broadly and awarded substantial damages. In Smith v. Diffee Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, the plaintiff was discharged (while on FMLA leave) because she had not trained other employees in her job duties as she had been instructed to do. While she was on FMLA leave (for cancer), the employer discovered that other employees could not cover her position due to their lack of training. The plaintiff admitted that she had not trained the other employees as requested, but insisted that training was not one of her official duties, that she had not been given a deadline, and that she was not well suited to do training. The jury concluded that the employer had unlawfully "interfered with" the plaintiff's FMLA rights by firing her since she would not have been discharged had she not taken FMLA leave.
The Tenth Circuit agreed, and explained that as long as the employer acts for a reason "connected with" an employee's FMLA leave, there is a violation of the law. The court further ruled that if an employee is discharged while on FMLA leave, the employer can only prevail if it can prove that the employee would have been discharged regardless of whether or not she had taken FMLA leave.
In Smith, the jury awarded $58,000 in back pay, $4,785 in interest, and a doubling of the total amount as a statutory form of punitive damages. The Tenth Circuit added that the plaintiff should also have been awarded "front pay," that is, future wages from the date of trial because she testified that she had intended to continue to work for the employer.
With respect to the plaintiff's ADA claim, the Tenth Circuit ruled that a leave of absence may be required as a "reasonable accommodation" for a disability. While a leave of unlimited duration need not be granted, a 12-week leave (as allowed under the FMLA) is "reasonable" as a matter of law. Consequently, the plaintiff should have prevailed on her ADA claim as well as her FMLA claim and would be entitled to greater damages.