In Geromanos v. Columbia University, the District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld the termination of a research nurse for failing to comply with the conditions of her FMLA leave by working as a teacher of Lamaze classes and by failing to provide Columbia with weekly updates of her progress in a treatment program for alcoholism, as required by her agreement with Columbia.
Geromanos had gone out on medical leave after she was found intoxicated at work. Columbia required all employees on medical leave to apply for short-term disability in order to receive salary continuation. She was not allowed to work at another job and had to submit weekly progress reports in order to receive paid leave. Columbia placed Geromanos on FMLA leave, but failed to notify her that it classified her leave as such. Columbia found out that the Plaintiff had been working as a Lamaze instructor while on leave. Performing work for compensation while on leave was an abuse of the “Salary Continuation Program,” and Columbia decided to terminate her for failing to comply with conditions of her leave, as well as her failure to submit weekly progress reports. However, Columbia continued her on full salary and medical coverage until a month after her FMLA leave expired.
Geromanos sued, alleging Columbia interfered with her FMLA rights by not informing her of her FMLA rights, not informing her she was placed on FMLA leave, requiring her to submit weekly progress reports while on leave, and terminating her because she did not provide the reports and for working a second job. The court granted summary judgment to Columbia, noting that Geromanos had received her entire FMLA leave entitlement, that she had received benefits beyond those required by the FMLA, and there was no evidence that she was terminated for taking FMLA leave.
Additionally, the court said Geromanos was unable to perform essential duties of her employment at the end of her leave and that she had failed to show that Columbia’s failure to notify her that her leave was classified as FMLA leave or the requirement that she submit weekly treatment reports constituted interference with her FMLA rights. Geromanos had notice of the policy concerning FMLA leave, which was in Columbia’s online handbook, and she failed to explain how lack of notice affected her ability to take leave.
Employer Notes: This case is helpful for employers who terminate employees who violate the conditions of their leave and who fail to comply with the requirements of a last-chance agreement. The court noted that there was no interference with her FMLA rights, and the fact that she was fired while on FMLA leave did not constitute legal interference with protected rights. Geromanos received more benefits than that to which she would have been entitled under the FMLA, as had the plaintiff in the earlier United States Supreme Court decision in Ragsdale v. Wolverine, and thus there was no harm in the failure to provide the FMLA notice.
Submitted by Susan Krell, a Partner with the firm of JACKSON LEWIS LLP. You can contact Susan in the Hartford, CT, office at 860-522-0404 or via email at krells@jacksonlewis.com.
This article appears in Council’s September 2004 Personnel Law Update newsletter. Click here to subscribe or order a free trial.
A recent Department of Labor survey indicates that over 35 percent of employers are still facing difficult challenges in administering the FMLA. Council’s intensive one-day FMLA Update will provide you with all the latest state and federal court decisions and legal developments to ensure that you will have the practical knowledge and tools necessary to comply with the law. Click on the link above for more information, including a detailed agenda, dates, and locations.