Global Employment Law - Global News & Commentary on Labor and Employment Issues Worldwide

The plaintiff in Erdman had sued her employer for retaliation based on a request for FMLA leave (which was never taken, as she was fired before the leave was to begin) to care for her disabled daughter, and for disability discrimination under the ADA based on her association with her daughter.  The lower court initially dismissed her FMLA claim because it determined that she failed to work the requisite 1,250 hours to qualify for FMLA leave.  The employee, however, alleged that she worked a number of extra hours in exchange for compensatory time off (comp time).  Whether the employee was authorized to work off-the-clock, and when the employer became aware of her work arrangement, were unresolved issues.  The Third Circuit, therefore, reversed this dismissal on the grounds that whether the employer had constructive knowledge of the employee's hours worked off-the-clock was a disputed issue of material fact.

The appellate court further rejected the employer's claim that the FMLA retaliation charge failed because the employee was never able to take leave.  The court reasoned that the key inquiry is whether the employee had invoked his or her FMLA rights, and that "firing an employee for a valid request for FMLA leave may constitute interference with the employee's FMLA rights as well as retaliation against the employee."

With respect to the plaintiff's ADA association claim, however, the Third Circuit distinguished between taking an adverse employment action based on the employee's daughter's disability, as opposed to based on the employee's need to take time off to care for her.  The court emphasized that the ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to the disabled, not to relatives of the disabled.  In the case at hand, the employee could not show that the employer's action was motivated by her daughter's disability rather than the employee's intent to miss work.  Therefore, the employer did not violate the ADA by firing the employee who requested leave, even if that leave was to take care of someone who was disabled.

For more insight into this case and its practical implications for employers, continue reading The Third Circuit Provides Guidance on Thorny FMLA and ADA Issues, by Martha Keon and Sarah Powenski.