Alaska Employment Law

A recent FMLA case from the 7th Circuit, Ryl-Kuchar v. Care Centers, addresses interference with FMLA rights and retaliation claims, and illustrates some of the common problems that arise when employees are on or considering maternity leave.

The employee was pregnant and working at home.  Her total hours dipped under 35 hours a week.  The employer had approved her request to work at home.  The employer conducted an audit months later, after the employee had delivered her children and was taking FMLA leave.  The employer found out that the employee had been working under 35 hours a week before the birth, and concluded that she was really a part-time employee from that point (and thus not eligible for health insurance under the employer’s plan).  The employer then cancelled the employee’s health insurance, retroactive to the time before she gave birth. 

The employee filed suit alleging that the employer interfered with her FMLA right to continued health insurance and that the employer retaliated against her for taking FMLA leave.  The jury returned a verdict in her favor and the 7th Circuit affirmed on appeal.  The evidence of retaliation was sparse - the employer’s approval of her plan to work at home clashed with its later punishment of her for working at home, the employer had expressed concerns about rising health care costs in a company newsletter, and the timing of the decision was suspect.  However, the court concluded that this was sufficient to support the employee’s retalation claim.  The interference claim presented no problems for the court.  The employer had classified the employee as a salaried employee and had approved her request and plan to work at home.  Consequently, the subsequent decision to classify her as a part-time employee was not justifiable. The employer’s decision to retroactively cancel the employee’s health insurance after she went out of FMLA leave therefore constituted a clear case of interference. 

The court’s opinion is a short but informative object lesson about the importance of vetting decisions through legal counsel before putting them into play. The employer was trying to do the right thing, but through a comedy of errors it wound up making a string of bad decisions that exposed it to liability.

Ryl-Kuchar v. Care Centers, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. May 11, 2009)