The Federal Sector FMLA Blog

DOL Supervised Settlement Bars FMLA Lawsuit

In Dumas v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., No. C 05-4702 PJH, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30042 (N.D.Cal. April 24, 2007), the employee sued his employer for, among other things, violation of the FMLA.  The employee was employed by the Defendant from 1988 until 2003 when he was terminated.  He alleged that his termination violated the FMLA and California Family Rights Act (CFRA).  The CFRA is the California counterpart to the federal FMLA.  The FMLA is incorporated into the CFRA. 

Dumas failed a compliant against the Defendant with the U.S. Department of Labor alleging that his termination violated the CFRA/FMLA. The DOL complaint was resolved in March of 2004 when plaintiff signed a release of claims and accepted back pay and reinstatement.  The DOL settlement language was board and stated that "by accepting the settlement plaintiff is giving up his right under the FMLA to bring suit for lost wages or denied wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation." 

Based on the DOL settlement, the Company moved to dismiss the FMLA claims.  The Court agreed.  The Court found that the employee released all FMLA and CFRA related claims when he signed the DOL settlement.  As such, his claim that the Defendant violated the CFRA is barred.

Comment:  The decision reaffirms that an employee who resolves their FMLA claim in a DOL-supervised settlement will not be able to maintain a lawsuit against the employer based on those claims.  The decision is interesting in that the U.S. Department of Labor only has jurisdiction over the federal FMLA, not the CFRA. The Court read the broad language of the settlement to include CFRA claims.

Release of FMLA Claims: the Courts Split

Employers frequently ask employees to sign a release of all employment claims in exchange for the payment of some monetary compensation when an employee is terminated.  The validity of such releases in light of the proscriptions of 29 CFR 825.220(d) has been addressed by the Fourth and Fifth Circuit Courts. Section 825.220(d) generally provides that "empoyees cannot waive, nor may employers induce empoyees to waive, their rights under the FMLA." 

In Faris v. Williams WPC-1, Inc., 332 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2003), an employee signed post-termiantion release and accepted $4,000 for doing same.  The employee signed the release, accepted the money, and promptly sued the employer for violation of the FMLA.  The employer moved to enforce the release and dismiss the suit.  The court found that Section 825.220(d) prohibited the waiver of substantive rights, not procedural rights.  The court described substantive rights as those pertaining to the right to take leave, conditions of that leave, and job restoration.  The court found that procedural rights, such as the right to maintain a cause of action for damages for violation of the FMLA, was not proscribed by SEction 825.220(d).

In similar circumstances, the Fourth Circuit in Taylor v. Progress Energy, Inc., 415 F.3d 364 (4th Cir. 2005) found that section 825.220(d) prohibited the retrospective and prospective waiver of both substantive and procedural rights.  The court held that, in the absence of prior approval of the DOL or a court, 29 C.F.R. 825.220(d) bars the waiver of both substantive and procedural FMLA rights. 

Comment: