In Hoge v. Honda of America Mfg. (2004), the Sixth Circuit upheld judgment for the employee on her claim that Honda failed to timely restore her to work after her FMLA leave. The court found that Honda’s failure to return Hoge to work until 34 days after she attempted (and was able) to return to work violated the FMLA.
Hoge, an assembly associate, worked on the “door line” in a position that accommodated her permanent work restrictions from an earlier car accident. On April 20, 2000, Honda approved Hoge’s request for FMLA leave from May 11 until June 12, 2000, for abdominal surgery. Honda approved two requested extensions of FMLA leave beyond Hoge’s original June 12 expected return date.
An issue in the case concerned Hoge’s anticipated return-to-work date. Hoge contended that she never requested leave beyond June 26, and a leave of absence form dated June 19 establishes June 26 as the return date. Honda, on the other hand, contended that it did not expect Hoge to return until July, and in support presented two letters to Hoge, one indicating a leave extension until July 19 and the second, from another employee in the Leave Coordination Department, granting a leave extension until July 12.
Nevertheless, Hoge reported to work on June 27, expecting to be returned to her position on the “door line.” While Hoge was on leave, Honda had retooled its plant, including the assembly department, to prepare for production of its year 2000 models. As a result, Honda told Hoge that it did not have an available position that would accommodate her restrictions and sent Hoge home. Honda conducted a placement review but did not locate an equivalent position for Hoge until July 26, 2000. Hoge returned to work on July 31 working on the “engine line.” Hoge sued, claiming Honda violated her FMLA rights by failing to reinstate her on June 27.
Honda claimed it met its obligation under the FMLA to return Hoge to an equivalent position within a reasonable period of time. The Sixth Circuit disagreed with Honda’s interpretation of the timeliness of the restoration right. The court read the timing issue very narrowly and concluded:
In this case, because Hoge appeared for work on June 27, the latest she could be returned to work under the FMLA was two days later, on June 29. However, because a question of fact existed as to whether Honda had granted an extension of Hoge’s FMLA leave with a return date of June 26, the court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether Honda was required to return Hoge to work on June 26 or June 29.
Employer Notes: The Sixth Circuit clearly noted that time is of the essence with respect to the restoration rights available under the FMLA. Employers should grant FMLA leave and extensions of such leave for a definite period of time so they always know the anticipated return-to-work date. Be proactive: employers should stay in contact with employees on leave and request periodic status reports from those employees as allowed under the FMLA. FMLA policies and paperwork clearly should spell out any obligations that the employee has to remain in contact and report any status changes. Employers also should ensure that supervisors have a basic understanding of the FMLA and the need to promptly report status information about employees on leave to the person handling FMLA leave and restoration rights. Lastly, move promptly in returning employees to work at the conclusion of their FMLA leave.
Submitted by Helen C. Adams, Shareholder, Dickinson Mackaman Tyler & Hagen P.C., Des Moines, Iowa. You can contact Ms. Adams at hadams@dickinsonlaw.com.
Reprinted from Council’s Personnel Law Update newsletter. To subscribe or order a free trial subscription, click here.
Council’s FMLA Update 2005 and Mastering the FMLA Puzzle are programs that will provide you with the latest legal developments and best practices to ensure that you have the practical knowledge and tools necessary to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act. For information on dates and locations, click on the links above.