PHILADELPHIA – A per curiam panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has upheld a lower court ruling which ordered that a wrongful termination complaint filed by a man versus his ex-employer over his taking medical leave would be dismissed.
Third Circuit judges Theodore A. McKee, Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. and Stephanos Bibas affirmed the dismissal on June 28 in favor of SP Plus Corporation, and against plaintiff Derrick White.
“White filed a complaint alleging that he was fired in retaliation for taking medical leave. The Magistrate Judge assigned to White’s case screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2). Construing it to allege a violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the judge determined that White had failed to state a claim because, among other things, he had failed to describe the factual circumstances surrounding his leave and termination. The judge invited White to file an amended complaint to correct the errors, noting what information he needed to include to pursue an FMLA claim,” the Third Circuit said.
“White filed an amended complaint that lacked specific allegations but had various documents attached to it, including a hospital intake form dated Sept. 9, 2015, stating that White sprained his wrist after he ‘slipped on oil and fell.’ There was also a doctor’s note requesting that White be excused from work for two weeks from Feb. 9, 2016, due to ‘recent hand surgery,’ and reports from an orthopedic practice stating that White could return to work with restrictions on Feb. 29, 2016, and without restrictions on April 11, 2016.”
Also attached was a grant of unemployment benefits stating that White last worked on Feb. 8, 2016, and that he took a leave of absence for “health reasons.” Moreover, there was a document showing that White was hired as a part-time employee in August 2014, and an employer’s performance appraisal from December 2015 evaluating White’s performance as “below expectations,” There were no documents included pertaining to White’s request for medical leave.
But “based on the procedural history of the case,” the trial court judge interpreted White’s amended complaint to allege retaliation and interference under the FMLA. He “again determined that White had failed to state a claim and recommended dismissal, and over White’s objections, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and dismissed White’s amended complaint.”
White appealed to the Third Circuit.
“We agree with the District Court’s decision to dismiss White’s amended complaint. It is unlawful for an employer to interfere with an employee’s FMLA rights or to retaliate against him on the basis of either requesting or taking FMLA leave,” the Third Circuit said.
“In both the interference and retaliation contexts, a claimant must establish, among other things, that he was protected under the FMLA and that he requested FMLA leave. To establish protection under the FMLA, a claimant must demonstrate that he ‘was an eligible employee under the FMLA’ and that he was ‘entitled to FMLA leave.”
The Third Circuit explained that though White took a leave of absence from work due to a hand injury, he did not allege sufficient facts from which one could infer that he was eligible for or entitled to FMLA leave, or that he even requested such leave.
Per the Court, in the event that White was, in fact, granted FMLA leave, he cannot now claim that he was denied FMLA benefits – and if White was entitled to and requested or took FMLA leave, he “nonetheless failed to allege that he was fired as a result of requesting or taking such leave.”
“In fact, it is unclear whether White was even fired, given that he was granted unemployment compensation following a determination of eligibility under 43 Pa. Stat. Section 802, which suggests that White left the job voluntarily. While White did generally allege that he was fired as a result of taking medical leave in some of his other filings, he did not provide nearly enough detail (such as the dates he requested leave, took leave, or was terminated) to state a plausible FMLA claim,” the Third Circuit concluded.
“Finally, the District Court did not err in declining to grant White leave to further amend his complaint, as he had already amended his complaint once and further amendment would be futile. Because this appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm.”
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 20-3604
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:20-cv-00021
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com