Publications: “Light Duty” Assignment May Qualify As FMLA Leave

To read the original Client Update in PDF format, please click the Related Files link.

In a noteworthy recent Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) decision of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Roberts v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., the court held that a defendant employer was entitled to summary judgment despite its failure to notify the plaintiff that it deemed a thirteen-week “light duty” assignment FMLA leave. The Roberts court found that the employer properly counted the “light duty” assignment as FMLA leave, and held that its failure to provide proper notice, standing alone, did not violate the FMLA, whose full benefits the employee received. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., the Roberts court held that to present an actionable FMLA claim a plaintiff must demonstrate that an employer’s lack of notice actually prejudiced her FMLA rights.

The FMLA grants eligible employees with a serious health condition the right to up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave in a twelve-month period, without retaliation. Department of Labor regulations require employers to notify employees when leave will be designated FMLA leave.

The Roberts employer placed the plaintiff on “light duty” for approximately thirteen weeks due to a back injury. She remained unable to work, as a result of which her employer discharged her. More than twelve weeks after the termination, the employer reinstated her, reimbursed her for medical expenses and provided back pay from the time of a medical clearance for work through her reinstatement. Finding that the plaintiff received all that she was entitled to under the FMLA, the Roberts court granted her employer summary judgment. In so doing it followed a Labor Department Regulation providing that a “light duty” assignment may satisfy the FMLA’s unpaid leave requirement. The court noted that to recover damages FMLA plaintiffs must prove that a defendant’s lack of notice prejudiced FMLA rights. Because the Roberts plaintiff would have been unable to work without restrictions after a twelve-week leave, her employer’s failure to notify her that the “light duty” assignment would be counted as FMLA leave did not prejudice her FMLA rights.

The Roberts court also rejected the plaintiff’s compensatory and punitive damages claims and her claim to lost wages from the date of her termination through the date of her full medical release. It noted that in contrast to Title VII, the FMLA does not permit plaintiffs to recover compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering or punitive damages, and that her lost wage claim overlooked the critical facts that the FMLA only entitles qualifying workers to 12 weeks of unpaid leave and she was unable to work during that entire period due to her medical restrictions.