New District Court Decision Allows Equitable Estoppel FMLA Claim

A new decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania may impact employers with remote offices with fewer than 50 employees.

On November 2, 2011, Senior Judge Ronald Buckwalter of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that an employee could proceed with an equitable estoppel claim based upon the FMLA against her former employer even though the office where she worked had fewer than fifty (50) employees within 75 miles of her worksite -  a requirement to be eligible for FMLA leave.  In Wilson v. Rawle & Henderson, No. 11-4636 (E.D.Pa. November 2, 2011), the Court denied a motion to dismiss Ms. Wilson’s claim that she was unlawfully terminated for and was not reinstated to her position in violation of the FMLA.
The relevant facts of the case are as follows.  Ms. Wilson made a request for FMLA leave and the employer was provided a medical certification of her need for FMLA leave from a health care provider.  Thereafter, the defendant sent the plaintiff a letter informing her that she was eligible for FMLA leave for the period June 13, 2011 to June 30, 2011.  However, on June 29, 2011, the defendant sent the plaintiff another letter stating that her employment was being terminated as of July 1, 2011.  The June 29 letter did not state a reason for the plaintiff’s termination, however, she had previously been placed on a performance improvement plan only days before she requested FMLA leave.
Noting that the plaintiff was not actually eligible for FMLA leave, the Court allowed her to proceed with her claim under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.  The plaintiff maintained that she could have returned to her  job prior to her termination date, if necessary to save her job, but did not do so because she was under the impression that her time off was protected by the FMLA.
In summary, the plaintiff argued that because the defendant had wrongly informed her that she was eligible for FMLA leave and that she relied to her detriment on that representation, she should be permitted to proceed with a claim under an estoppel theory which the court noted was not the same as a claim under the FMLA.  In holding that the plaintiff could proceed under an equitable estoppel theory, the Court observed that to show an entitlement to relief,  the plaintiff would have to prove that she actually and reasonably relied upon her employer’s misrepresentations about being covered by the FMLA  to her detriment  which she alleged was  the termination of her employment.
Employers who are not statutorily required to provide FMLA leave to employees in locations that do not have 50 employees within 75 miles of the worksite should take note of this decision.  In such cases, Employers may be required to follow the strictures of the FMLA.