A federal court doubled the damages awarded by a jury for violation of the FM LA because the employer failed to research whether a probationary employee was eligible for FMLA leave before terminating her.
Melissa Brown was hired in November 2002 as a food service director for Plymouth House, a nursing home. In August 2004, Plymouth contracted with Nutrition Management Services Co., to manage the food service. Nutrition Management retained Brown to continue as food service director. In October 2004, Nutrition Management terminated Brown after being informed that she was pregnant. Brown filed a civil action against Nutrition Management for unlawful interference with her FMLA rights, among other claims. Nutrition Management argued that it did not violate the FMLA because Brown was not eligible for FMLA leave. The jury disagreed, awarding Brown $ 74,000 in back pay and damages under the FMLA.
Brown subsequently filed a motion seeking $ 80,655.82 in liquidated damages. Title I of the FMLA provides that a prevailing party is entitled to recover liquidated (double) damages equal to the amount of damages awarded for lost compensation plus interest unless the defendant can demonstrate that it acted in good faith on the belief that the actions or omissions was not a violation.
The FMLA does not define what constitutes "good faith." Courts, however, have looked to the standard developed under the FLSA, which contains nearly identical language. Pursuant to that standard, reasonable good faith requires a defendant to take affirmative steps to ascertain the requirements of the law. "A defendant employer's burden of proof is a difficult one to meet. Double damages are the norm, single damages the exception." Martin v. Cooper Electric Supply Co., 940 F.3d 896, 908 (3d Cir. 1991).
Nutrition Management argued that it acted on the good faith belief that Brown was not an eligible employee under the FMLA because her termination occurred during her probationary period. As support, Nutrition Management offered the testimony of Scott Murray, an attorney with general knowledge of employment law and Nutrition Management's director of human resources. Mr. Murray testified that he determined that it was "okay" to terminate Brown because she was "a brand new employee." The Court found that Nutrition Management's reliance on Mr. Murray's cursory determination inadequate to determine whether Brown's prior employer was covered by the FMLA and, if so, whether Nutrition Management was a successor -in-interest. The court observed:
Comment: The employer's reliance on the HR director's general knowledge of employment law in lieu of researching the FMLA cost it an extra $80,000. To avoid the presumption of double damages you must be in a position to truthfully testify that you conducted a reasonable inquiry into the requirements of the FMLA. Actually reading the applicable FMLA regulations regarding the issue at hand would be a good start. The decision reminds us of what they say about taking action based on assumptions.
Brown v. Nutrition Management Services Co., No. 06-2034, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4199 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 21, 2009),
Comments