The case of Hilbert v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2017-Ohio-488, presents the simple question of whether an employer unlawfully interferes with an employee’s Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave by terminating his employment before he can exercise his rights under the FMLA leave. The obvious answer to this question should, hopefully, be an emphatic, “Yes!” from our faithful readers.
Hilbert, the plaintiff in this case, was a long tenured electrician for the Ohio Department of Transportation (“ODOT”). The Ohio appellate court took pains to note that Hilbert “was a diligent and hard-working employee who got along well with his co-workers, whose work was always deemed satisfactory, who never received a negative evaluation, and, until the events at issue in this case, never received a reprimand or discipline.” Hilbert at ¶ 3.
“On August 16, 2013, while returning from a concert, Hilbert was arrested and charged with the offense of operating a motor vehicle while impaired. He refused a breath test which resulted in an immediate suspension of his Ohio driver’s license.” Hilbert at ¶ 4. Ordinarily this would probably remain a personal, not a professional, problem for Hilbert. However, Hilbert’s union contract required him to maintain a Class A commercial driver’s license – even though he never operated a commercial vehicle to perform his work.
“Shortly after receiving his traffic citation, Hilbert [* * *] contacted his family physician who suggested that Hilbert take leave under” the FMLA to treat signs of alcoholism. Hilbert at ¶ 9.
As result, Hilbert contact the benefits administrator and requested leave from his job under the FMLA. Immediately afterwards, his supervisor scheduled Hilbert for a pre-disciplinary meeting and attempted to persuade Hilbert to resign. The supervisor “was aware that Hilbert had requested FMLA leave before” this meeting. Hilbert at ¶ 35. ODOT then fired Hilbert before he could complete his medical certification requirements under the FMLA.
“Based on these facts, [the court found that] a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that ODOT denied Hilbert FMLA leave by firing him before he could begin his leave to enter a rehabilitation program.” Hilbert at ¶ 36. Specifically, the Ohio appellate court found that “[i]nstead of having the chance to exercise his rights in a meaningful way and demonstrate his entitlement to leave, ODOT fired him. As such, the record indicates that Hilbert established a prima facie claim of interference with his rights under the FMLA.” Hilbert at ¶ 35.
While this case presents a relatively straight forward issue, the intersection of employee discipline and the FMLA can present thorny issues for employers – and governmental employers are no exception. Administrators are advised to contact competent legal counsel when facing such difficult employment issues, and McGown & Markling attorneys are available to assist you in addressing these issues.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.