posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:40 PM
by
Lou Michels
Standards Are Standards
Notwithstanding my dislike of the Family and Medical Leave Act because of the latent uncertainty it introduces into attendance issues, the statute does have some well-defined requirements, especially regarding eligibility. A recent case out of the 7th Circuit shows just how tightly those requirements should be applied.
A former postal worker sued the USPS for an FMLA violation when it terminated her for absenteeism.
The facts in this case could only apply to someone working for the government. The employee was hired in 1993 as a mail handler and terminated at least four times over the next seven years for poor attendance. She also received multi-day suspensions for failure to show up to work regularly. However, following each termination, the plaintiff was able to talk her way back and get the firing changed to a suspension instead.
In October, 2001, plaintiff's supervisor ordered her to clock out two hours early as a punishment because she was being insubordinate. Plaintiff later disagreed with the supervisor's determination, but failed to properly grieve the discipline within the appropriate time frame.
After plaintiff missed more time in December, 2001, the USPS had enough and fired her. She sued under the FMLA, claiming that she had a bona fide medical reason for missing work. The USPS initially admitted that the plaintiff worked the required 1250 hours in the 12 months preceding her unscheduled absence, but then amended its answer and denied that plaintiff was qualified for FMLA leave. In support of its contention, the Post Office produced plaintiff's payroll records crediting her with 1248.8 paid hours and 1249.8 time-clock measured hours. On the basis of the 1.2 or .2 hour shortfall, the district court awarded summary judgment to the Postal Service, finding that the plaintiff was ineligible for FMLA protection because of the failure to meet the 1250 hour threshold.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing: that the time that she spent putting on her Post-Office issued gloves, shirt and shoes should have been factored in to give her the needed additional time (the FLSA exception); that the two hours that she lost on the suspension should be added to her work totals because she was wrongly ordered to clock out (the union contract exception); and that the 1.2/.2 hour shortfall was so minor that the court shouldn't really count it, but should instead give her credit for meeting the minimum threshold (the teenager coming in after curfew exception).
The Seventh Circuit upheld the district court, noting that the ex-employee introduced no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the payroll records and that a failure to meet the requirement is a failure to meet the requirement. The court would not add in the additional 1.2 / .2 hours to bring her to 1250 hours, nor would it give her credit for the 2-hour suspension (because she had not grieved the suspension timely) and finally ruled that the donning and doffing of minimal amounts of non-unique safety clothing is not compensable time and could not be counted.
There are two important lessons here. The first is that statutory standards are exactly that, and courts will enforce them when confronted with irrefutable evidence that an employee has failed to make the grade. The second is that even small disparities in things like time records can have huge effects down the road. This case would have gone the other way if the company had not held the plaintiff to her grievance requirements, or if its timekeeping records had not been pristine. Particularly with troublesome employees, the company that plays strictly by the rules can usually hold the employee to the same strict standard.