Heart Attack Victim Recovers Damages for FMLA Violation
May 1, 1999
Erika Royal- Ft Lauderdale
The First Circuit recently affirmed a jury verdict finding that an employer
violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (the FMLA) when it failed to offer an
"equivalent" position to a manager returning to work after recovering
from multiple heart attacks.
The plaintiff in Watkins v. J&S Oil Company, (1st. Cir. 1998), was a gas
station manager for J&S Oil Co, Inc. In 1994, Watkins suffered two heart
attacks and underwent surgery. While Watkins was on leave recuperating, J&S
hired a replacement station manager. When Watkins' FMLA leave was over, J&S
informed him that he could return to work, but not in his prior position and,
instead, offered him a position as a gas station attendant. Watkins declined and
sued J&S for violating the FMLA. The case was tried to a jury which awarded
Watkins $43,000 in damages.
Under the FMLA, an eligible employee may be entitled to a total of up to 12
weeks of leave during a 12-month period if the employee suffers from a
"serious health condition" that renders the employee unable to perform
the essential functions of his or her position. Upon return from FMLA leave, the
employee must be returned either to the previous position or to an equivalent
position with equivalent benefits, pay and conditions of employment.
To bring a lawsuit under the FMLA, a plaintiff must show that (1) he or she
is protected under the Act; (2) that he or she suffered an adverse employment
decision; and (3) either that he or she was treated less favorably than an
employee who had not requested FMLA leave, or that the adverse decision was made
because of the request for leave, i.e., in retaliation.
In Watkins, the First Circuit agreed with the trial court's holding that
replacing Watkins as station manager did not in and of itself constitute an
"adverse employment decision" under the FMLA. In other words, the FMLA
did not require that J&S return Watkins to his former management position.
However, the court held that the FMLA required J&S to offer Watkins an
equivalent position. The court construed the "equivalent" requirement
to mean that which is "substantially equal or similar," not
necessarily identical or exactly the same, but clearly not one at substantially
lesser pay. The court did allow, however, that an employer may take into account
the employee's physical capabilities in determining what constitutes equivalent
work. This case highlights the problems inherent in refusing to reinstate an
employee returning from FMLA leave to his or her former position.
For more information please call Susan Aprill or Erika R. Royal at
1-888-688-8500.
Related Practices