By Loyd Willaford and Sarah Burke
In Shelton v. Boeing Co., a former Boeing employee brought a claim under the Washington Family Leave Act, alleging that Boeing could not require an employee to to notify his manager in addition to requesting leave through a company hotline. A U.S. District Court in Washington disagreed, and found that an employer is permitted under the WFLA and FMLA to maintain additional notification requirements on top of its medical leave requirements and granted summary judgment.
Anthony Shelton worked at the Boeing Company for twenty five years. During his tenure with the company, Shelton took off time periodically to assist his son, who suffered from a severe medical condition. Under Boeing policy, employees are required to request FMLA leave through a telephone hotline, as well as notify their manager prior to the start of the leave. Shelton requested leave through the hotline but failed to notify his manager and was disciplined twice.
After these disciplines, Shelton returned to a new work group under a new supervisor for a fresh start. Unfortunately, Shelton’s relationship with his supervisor and group deteriorated quickly and he was again disciplined for refusing to work and leaving his work area. This final discipline resulted in an investigation and, ultimately, Shelton’s termination from the company. After his termination, Shelton brought a claim under the WFLA, conceding that while the conduct that gave rise to his final disciplinary action was not related to his FMLA leave, the first two steps of his progressive discipline were and his FMLA was a but-for cause of his termination.
The WFLA directs that it should be construed consistent to the language within the FMLA which provides that an employee comply with the employer’s usual and customary notice and procedural requirements for requesting leave. The Court found that under this language, employers are permitted to maintain generally applicable notification requirements in addition to their medical leave request procedures. The Court went on to find that Shelton knew of these requirements and failed to follow them, which resulted in his discipline. This evidence would not permit a reasonable jury to conclude an adverse employment action had occurred because of his FMLA leave.
In summary, the district court found that an employer can require additional notification requirements outside of their standard medical leave request procedures and not violate the WFLA or FMLA. An employee’s failure to comply with these requirements that results in discipline does not show an adverse employment action has occurred and summary judgment is appropriate.
The District Court Judge Zilly, a Reagan appointee, took a fairly narrow view of the law on notification here. This case is currently on appeal with the Ninth Circuit. While an employer can have reasonable notification policies, it cannot enforce them in a way which interferes with the taking of FMLA leave. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.304(e). This case was complicated by the fact that the employee did not dispute the validity of the final offense he was fired for. Rather, he argued that his prior reprimands for violations of the FMLA policy, which were cited as progressive discipline to fire him, amounted to interference with his FMLA rights and that he would not have been fired otherwise. This made it more difficult for the employee to argue that it was the taking of leave which led to his termination.
The takeaway from this case is that employees should comply to the letter with employer notification policies if the employees want to preserve a potential a FMLA retaliation suit.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Family Medical Leave Act. **
