One of the things that happen with the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a disconnect between the complex structure of the FMLA and its practical application. Plaintiff attorneys will sometimes assert in claims that they don’t understand how there could be an FMLA issue given that the structure is “so easy to understand.” This is typically because plaintiff attorneys don’t have to assess it in real time and are only dealing with issues and perceptions well after the events have occurred with a historical perspective as a guide.

In real-time, assessing the FMLA can be extremely complicated, particularly if an employee is unwilling to cooperate in the appropriate process. That means clear, contemporaneous documentation is critical as a recent appellate case demonstrates. 

About the Case

Ms. Brandt was a part-time employee with the City of Cedar Falls who was ultimately terminated in 2018. Beginning in 2016, Brandt had a number of general leave and FMLA requests with increasing frequency. These included various issues such as TMJ (jaw issue), anxiety, depression, and ADHD as well as requesting leave to care for a parent.

In 2016, she spoke with multiple supervisors regarding why she was being passed over for promotion to a full-time position and alleged that after these meetings, she began to be retaliated against in her workplace. Written notices and meeting notes were documented by the employer.

Over time Brandt was cited for various workplace issues and at one point indicated that her medication may have caused mood changes and exacerbated performance problems. Her medication list was provided to the city attorney who determined that the medications were not related to her performance problems which included “accounting errors, typos, and rude behavior.” Brandt was eventually terminated in March of 2018.

What the Court Decided

The court determined by summary judgment, before any trial, in favor of the City of Cedar Falls (the employer) with Brandt declaring a number of defenses to the summary judgment motion.

It was decided that Brandt’s damages were so nominal as to not be covered by the statute. This was determined, at least in part, based on Brandt’s prior arguments where her legal counsel stated, “I don’t believe we are necessarily seeking monetary damages,” and did not ask for any specific equitable relief. Equitable relief is typically something that an employer would do, such as a rehire or a promotion. The court indicated that multiple other courts also determined “that nominal damages are not recoverable because they are not included in the specific, statutorily prescribed damages under the FMLA.” 

Brandt had also argued pretext, specifically that the various disciplinary actions and warnings issued were pretext to discrimination of other types. The court noted that she had failed to provide pretext evidence of any form and that her argument was “… nothing more than disagreement with the statements contained in the disciplinary reports.” Additionally, in at least one circumstance, she admitted that she had previously stated that there were performance issues, pointing toward her medication management as part of her performance problem.

Brandt also argued that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her age and disability. The court noted that the claims were untimely and that under the law there is a 300-day statute of limitations period for claims of this type and a significantly greater period of time had passed before the filing of her claim.

The court again further noted here that the employer offered “a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Brandt – her documented history of deficient performance…” It went further to state that “Brandt offers nothing more than about the veracity of the disciplinary reports.…” Brandt’s additionally claimed a hostile work environment which the court also found to be precluded because of the lapse of the statute of limitations.

Brandt also raised the continuing violation doctrine which allows certain older proof elements or incidents to be brought in if there is a continuing issue and these incidents represent “an ongoing, unlawful employment practice.” The Court found that the disciplinary notices which occurred within the appropriate timeframe were related exclusively to her performance and were unrelated to age or disability and therefore could not form the foundation of the continuing violation doctrine. The number and consistency of performance deficiency notices and meetings were relied on by the Court in each of these areas.

The Big Picture

In this instance, the appellate court relied heavily on the employer’s documentation regarding its efforts to discipline, train, and assist in performance improvement from Ms. Brandt. There were multiple written disciplinary notices, meetings, and ongoing conversations regarding specific and articulate performance issues. It was these documents that formed the clear foundation for this defense and successful summary judgment motion.