What happens when an employer tells an employee he is eligible for FMLA leave, the employee relies on that and takes FMLA leave and the employer then fires the employee claiming he is ineligible to take FMLA leave? The doctrine of equitable estoppel stops this kind of double-cross as the Sixth Circuit explained recently in Tilley v Kalamazoo County Road Commission, No 14-1679 (Jan. 26, 2015).
Tilley had worked for the county road department for 15 years when he had to take FMLA leave due to an apparent heart attack. He was provided with the required paperwork for FMLA leave. Then the county fired him. Tilley claimed, among other things, that his firing violated the FMLA.
Although the county had provided FMLA paperwork to Tilley and indicated that he was eligible for FMLA leave, it argued successfully to the district court, Judge Robert Holmes Bell, that Tilley was ineligible for FMLA leave. The Sixth Circuit reversed holding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel precluded the county's argument that Tilley was ineligible for FMLA leave.
An employee can invoke equitable estoppel against an employer's FMLA ineligibility argument where he can show (1) a definite misrepresentation as to a material fact; (2) A reasonable reliance on the misrepresentation; and, (3) a resulting detriment to the party reasonably relying on the misrepresentation. Dobrowski v Jay Dee Contractors, 571 F3d 551, 557 (6th Cir. 2009). Tilley presented this proof by unequivocal language in the county's personnel manual, his reasonable reliance on that representation illustrated by the county twice telling him he was eligible for FMLA leave and suffered the detriment of being fired.
Although the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, it invited the district court to consider other grounds for summary judgment against Tilley, declining to address the additional arguments raised by the county and directing the district court to do so. So Tilley has a good chance of a second appeal prior to a trial or, more likely, a settlement on terms that may well by then reflect the economic desperation that might have set in on a 59 year old man out of work for an extended period of time. But we'll see.
The Sixth Circuit's unanimous opinion was authored by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the Eastern District of Michigan and was joined by Circuit Judges Richard Suhrheinrich and Richard Griffin, who are also from Michigan.
Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com
