Source: https://www.employmentlawgroup.com/in-the-news/articles/discovery-strategies-challenges-leave-disability-cases-3/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 11:54:12+00:00

Document:
medical records, even those that do not relate to the condition that necessitated her medical leave-taking.
Causes of Action. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides for unpaid leave due to the birth of a child, placement of a child, or serious illness of the employee or a family member. Maternity and paternity leave start on the date of a child’s birth. Pregnancy-related complications qualify for leave under the Act’s serious medical condition provision. 29 C.F.R. § 825.120(a)(4). Furthermore, it is unlawful for an employer to interfere with leave that an employee is entitled to take or to retaliate against an employee who takes leave. It is the employer’s responsibility to determine if the FMLA applies to its employees. See § 825.302(c).
First, that Ms. Breeden notified Novartis of her need to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act for the birth of her child. This fact is stipulated to or agreed by the parties, so you should assume it.
Second, that Ms. Breeden was subjected to a materially adverse action at the time or after she notified Novartis of her need to take leave under the FMLA. A materially adverse action is one that might well have dissuaded a reasonable employee from requesting FMLA leave.
Third, that there was a causal connection between Novartis’ allegedly material adverse action and Ms. Breeden’s notice to Novartis of her need to take FMLA leave.
And fourth, that Ms. Breeden lost compensation or benefits by reason of Novartis’ alleged adverse action, or sustained other monetary losses as a direct result of the alleged adverse action.
Retaliation is intentional if it is done voluntarily, deliberately, and willfully. In making a determination as to whether there was intentional retaliation in this case, you may consider any statement made or act done or omitted by a person whose intent is in issue, and all other facts and circumstances that you believe indicate his or her state of mind. You may also infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of acts that are knowingly done or knowingly omitted.
To establish the required causal connection, Ms. Breeden must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her exercise of her right to maternity leave was a motivating factor in Novartis’ decision to assign the Maryland area accounts to another sales representative. Ms. Breeden’s exercise of her FMLA rights was a motivating factor if it played a role in the decision, even though other factors may also have played a role in those realignment and reassignment decisions. Ms. Breeden is not required to prove that her exercise of her FMLA rights was the only reason for Novartis’ decision.
Novartis denies that its selection decision during the realignment were motivated by retaliation for Ms. Breeden’s exercise of her FMLA rights, and contends that they were motivated by legitimate business reasons. Ms. Breeden contends that those reasons are a pretext for unlawful retaliation. A pretext is an excuse or a false reason. Ms. Breeden can prove pretext by persuading you, again by a preponderance of the evidence, that her exercise of her FMLA rights was more likely the basis for the reassignment of sales territories than the reasons given by Novartis, or by persuading you that the reasons given by Novartis are not believable.
If you find that Ms. Breeden has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that retaliation more probably than not motivated Novartis, then you must find for Ms. Breeden. If you find that Novartis’ explanation is unworthy of belief, then you may conclude, but you’re not required to conclude, that Novartis’ real motive was retaliation.
It is not enough for Ms. Breeden to show that Novartis’ actions were unjust or unfair or not sensible. It is not your function to second-guess the wisdom of Novartis’ decision in this case. Territories may be reassigned and employees may be terminated for any reason, whether good or bad, as long as unlawful retaliation is not a motivating factor. In other words, you may not return a verdict for Ms. Breeden just because you might disagree with Novartis’ decisions, or believe them to be unfair or unreasonable.
To reach a verdict for Ms. Breeden, you must find that she has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that she lost compensation or benefits by reason of Novartis’ alleged adverse action, or sustained monetary losses as a result of the alleged adverse action.
If you reach a verdict for Ms. Breeden, then you must award her the amount of damages Novartis’ actions have caused her. You must award her any wages, salary, and employment benefits she would have earned in her employment with Novartis had she not been discharged on January 28th, through the date of your verdict, minus the amount of earnings and benefits from other employment she received during that time. While Ms. Breeden has the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence, she need not prove them to you with mathematical precision.
You are also instructed Ms. Breeden has a duty under the law to mitigate her damages; that is, to exercise reasonable diligence under the circumstances to minimize her damages. It is Novartis’ burden to prove that Ms. Breeden failed to mitigate her damages. If Novartis persuades you by a preponderance of the evidence that she failed to obtain substantially equivalent job opportunities that were reasonably available to her, you must reduce her damages by the amount of wages that she reasonably would have earned if she had obtained those opportunities.
Source of Instruction: Breeden v. Novartis (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, March 5, 2010; J. Robertson).
Plaintiff claims that defendant interfered with her right to take unpaid leave from work under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
First, Plaintiff or a family member as defined by the Act had Lupus.
Second, this condition was a “serious health condition,” defined in the statute as an illness, injury, impairment or physical or mental condition that involves either 1) inpatient care in a hospital or other care facility, or 2) continuing treatment by a health care provider.
Third, plaintiff gave appropriate notice of her need to be absent from work. “Appropriate notice” was given where plaintiff could foresee the need for leave, she notified defendant at least 30 days before the leave was to begin. If plaintiff could not foresee the need for leave, plaintiff notified the defendant as soon as practicable after she learned of the need for leave.
Plaintiff was required to timely notify defendant of the need for leave, but plaintiff was not required to specify that the leave was sought under the Family and Medical Leave Act, nor was plaintiff required to mention that Act in the notice.
Fourth, defendant interfered with the exercise of plaintiff’s right to unpaid leave. Under the statute, “interference” can be found in a number of ways, including: 1) terminating employment; 2) refusing to allow an employee to return to his or her job, or to an equivalent position, upon return from leave; 3) ordering an employee not to take leave or discouraging an employee from taking leave; and 4) failing to provide an employee who gives notice of the need for a leave a written notice detailing the specific expectations and obligations of the employee and explaining any consequences of a failure to meet these obligations.
I instruct you that you do not need to find that [defendant] intentionally interfered with [plaintiff’s] right to unpaid leave. The question is not whether [defendant] acted with bad intent, but rather whether [plaintiff] was entitled to a leave and [defendant] interfered with the exercise of that leave.
Source of Instruction: Model Jury Instructions (Civil) Third Circuit §10.1.1 (2008).
specifically direct you to include any such records of a sensitive nature among those sent to my attorneys. You are also authorized to provide my attorneys with an office conference and a medical report, if you are requested to do so by them.
• This protected health information is to be used for the following purpose: attorney’ s use in administrative or civil action.
to protected health information that had been previously released in reliance on this document.
• This undersigned acknowledges that a refusal to sign this form will not result in a denial of health care by the hospital or any other health care provider and that this release has not been coerced by a health care entity or any of its business associates.
• The undersigned acknowledges that once the PHI is disclosed, it may be redisclosed to individuals or organizations that are not subject to the federal privacy regulations such as expert witnesses, litigants, insurance companies, and even may become public record if filed with a court of law.
• This authorization will expire twenty-four (24) months after the date executed, unless earlier revoked in writing.
1. INSURANCE INFORMATION: Any and all information in your custody, possession or control, relating in any way to any application for insurance, correspondence, or claim for payment of benefits to or on behalf of the above-named individual under any form of insurance or similar plan, including employee welfare benefit plans, and any other such information in your custody, possession, or control.
2. EDUCATION & EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION: All school and educational information, including transcripts and all information relating in any way to employment, past or present, of the above-named individual, including, but not limited to, information pertaining to wages and salary, hours worked, dated of disability from employment, disciplinary records, commendations, applications for employment, and any other such information in your custody, possession, or control.
3. MEDICAID/MEDICARE/SOCIAL SECURITY INFORMATION: Any and all information, including benefit payment and lien information, medical records, applications for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, or other such benefits, and any other information pertaining to application for or receipt of such benefits.
THIS AUTHORIZATION WILL EXPIRE TWENTY-FOUR (24) MONTHS AFTER THE DATE EXECUTED, UNLESS EARLIER REVOKED IN WRITING.
An employee seeking coverage under the FMLA must demonstrate that she notified her employer timely of her need to take leave.4 Ask your client to provide you with a copy of the employer’s FMLA policy5 and for her written notice or certification6 to her employer of her need for leave-taking.
3) Copies of the employee’s job description and benefits before and after his FMLA leave-taking.
4) Communications between your client and her employer about any retaliation that her employer meted out as a result of her leave-taking.
6) Employer position statement submitted to the EEOC and state unemployment commissions.
Employer position statements to the EEOC and state unemployment commissions can provide a wealth of admissions. Both are generally admissible in a later trial as party admissions.12 Request them under the Privacy Act of 1974 in every case where your client has filed an EEOC charge under Title VII or where her employer has contested her eligibility for unemployment insurance compensation.
(1) Basic payroll and identifying employee data, including name, address, and occupation; rate or basis of pay and terms of compensation; daily and weekly hours worked per pay period; additions to or deductions from wages; and total compensation paid; However, for employees not subject to FLSA recordkeeping regulations for purposes of minimum wage or overtime compliance, an employer need not keep a record of actual hours worked, provided that eligibility for FMLA leave is presumed for any employee who has been employed for at least 12 NOTEHERE months and, with respect to employees who take FMLA leave intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule, the employer and employee agree on the employee’s normal schedule or average hours worked each week and reduce their agreement to a written record that is maintained.
(2) Dates for FMLA leave taken by employees (e.g., available from time records, requests for leave, if so designated). Leave must be designated in records as FMLA leave.
(3) If FMLA leave is taken in increments of less than one full day, the hours of the leave.
(4) Copies of employee notices of leave furnished to the employer under FMLA, if in writing, and copies of all required general and specific notices given to employees (e.g., copies may be maintained in employee personnel files).
(5) Any documents (including written and electronic records) describing employee benefits or employer policies and practices regarding the taking of paid and unpaid leaves.
(6) Premium payments of employee benefits.
2) Employer general FMLA policy notices.
3) Employer “Rights and Responsibilities” notice.
7) Determine if managers had access to employee confidential medical records.
1. Has the defendant had any policy relative to leave-taking (during the relevant time period)?
2. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please describe such policy and state the dates during which such policy has been in effect.
c. The individual’s job title and employment history with the defendant.
4. Does any policy relating to leave-taking, apply only to particular job categories?
5. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please identify the job categories in which such policies apply.
6. Please state whether applicants for jobs at any facility maintained by the defendant have been asked questions (during the relevant time period) regarding any plans to take leave under the FMLA.
c. The dates during which such questions may have been asked of applicants.
m. Whether an employee who takes an extended leave, while not guaranteed a job, is subject to rehire.
b. Forced to take leave on a particular date.
10. If the defendant has required an employee planning to take FMLA leave to take leave on a particular date, please state the business justification for such policy, and the dates during which such policy has been in effect.
11. Has taking FMLA leave by an employee been considered a temporary leave or has the employee been forced to resign (during the relevant time period)?
12. Please describe (for the relevant time period) the means by which seniority accrues for an employee while taking FMLA leave.
13. Please state (for the relevant time period) whether seniority accrues differently for purposes of promotion or other benefits during FMLA leave than during any other leave.
14. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please describe the difference.
15. Please state whether FMLA leave has ever resulted in a loss of seniority (during the relevant time period).
d. The amount of seniority lost.
17. Please state whether FMLA leave-taking has ever resulted in a loss of wages or other benefits of employment (during the relevant time period)?
e. The type of benefits lost.
19. Please state whether a FMLA leave request or FMLA leave-taking has ever resulted in the layoff of the individual taking such leave (during the relevant time period).
21. Does the defendant allege or contend that any policy relative to FMLA leave-taking has been governed by a collective bargaining agreement (during the relevant time period)?
c. The job categories or bargaining units affected by such agreement.
23. Does the defendant allege or contend that the failure to hire the plaintiff was due to the plaintiff’s lack of qualifications?
24. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please specify the qualifications that the plaintiff lacked, and the reason that the defendant considers such qualifications necessary to efficient job performance.
25. Please state whether the plaintiff’s qualifications would satisfy requirements for any position other than the one for which the plaintiff held or applied.
26. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please describe all positions for which plaintiff might have been considered and state whether the plaintiff was informed of the availability of such positions.
27. Does the defendant allege or contend that the plaintiff was unqualified for any promotion sought?
28. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please specify those qualifications which the plaintiff allegedly lacked.
d. A summary of the questions asked and the recommendation.
31. Does the defendant allege or contend a business justification for forced retirement of the plaintiff as a result of the plaintiff taking FMLA leave?
32. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state all facts on which you base your allegations or contentions.
33. Does the defendant allege or contend a business justification for any loss of wages, seniority or other benefits of employment during the plaintiff’s FMLA leave?
34. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state all facts on which you base your allegations or contentions.
35. Does the defendant allege or contend that the layoff of the plaintiff is unrelated to the employee taking FMLA leave?
bad faith or that she fabricated her medical certification.24 Therefore, file a motion for a protective order under Rule 26 asking that the court limit the employer’s record request to the one doctor that certified her serious health condition.
records so that you may conduct relevance and privilege review.
a. Employees who have potential claims that you can couple with a cause of action under the FMLA (e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Right Act, and common law wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claims).
b. Employees who have established good performance records before their leave-taking.
c. Employees who did not leave anything “undone” before taking leave, especially if the employee had ample notice of her need to take FMLA leave.
d. Employees who have maintained good relations with their co-workers such that their co-workers will testify that they did not feel overburdened by the employee’s leave-taking.
e. Employees who have mitigated their damages quickly but have meaningful economic damages.
b. An employer who fails to reinstate the employee into the same position and duties which the employee was performing when she took family and medical leave.
c. An employer that uses non-FMLA-covered absences occurring during the same period that an employee uses FMLA leave as a basis for an adverse employment action.
d. An employer that insists on contacting an employee’s treating physician to substantiate the serious nature of an employee’s health condition.
e. An employer that permits its management employees, rather than human resources professionals, to determine whether the employee qualified for FMLA leave.
f. An employer that terminates the employee while the employee is on FMLA- approved leave.
g. An employer that invokes the “key employee” FMLA exemption on employees other than those at the very highest level in the employer’s hierarchy.
h. An employer that allows its managers to inquire about the employee’s future family planning.
3) Case Prosecution/Defense Top Ten Tips.
ii. Seek discovery, especially from third parties, to show that the employer uses leave-taking, especially for the birth of a child, as a factor in its decision-making about employee promotion and advancement.
iv. If coupled with an accommodation request under the ADA, seek evidence in discovery that the employer failed to participate adequately in the interactive process.
4) Breeden v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. In Breeden, a pharmaceutical sales representative who worked for the transplant business unit of Novartis was retaliated against for taking FMLA leave for the birth of her child. The case was tried in March 2010 and resulted in a $579,338 judgment for the plaintiff. Below are the facts of the case.
her authority and responsibilities, reduced her status – her prestige, her importance, and her opportunity for visibility and advancement.
The sales volume of Breeden’s new territory was effectively cut in half, going from a territory with a total of 1,260 transplants to one with 635. After the realignment, her old territory posted 1,060 transplants while her new one experienced 435.
After the realignment was announced, Breeden objected that her territory was slashed so profoundly and the general manager of the Novartis transplant business unit said on a conference call in response: “Well, you’re not coming back from maternity leave anyway right?” Breeden confirmed that she intended to return to work. Thereafter, Breeden’s supervisor said that he would make Breeden “whole,” that the changes were not permanent, and he promised that her territory would be revisited after she came back from leave.
Breeden qualified for and took FMLA qualifying leave beginning in late March 2005. Her daughter was born in April 2005 and she returned after some short-term disability and some accrued vacation on July 13, 2005. Soon thereafter, Breeden again raised the fact that her territory had been reduced so substantially and that she did not have enough work to fill the day. Novartis then informed Breeden that the change to her territory was permanent. Breeden went from having a high visibility with important customer relationships at stake to a low visibility job with relatively unimportant customer relationships. In January 2008, when Novartis was looking to reduce its sales staff by one, it naturally terminated Breeden’s position since her territory was the least important and had the least potential. In its defense, Novartis argued that an outside consulting firm organized the realignment and did not take Breeden’s maternity leave into account. However, Breeden’s leave was mentioned in a PowerPoint presentation given by the consulting firm.
b. Procedural posture. Breeden filed suit in April 2008 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging claims under Title VII, as well as breaches of the entitlement and anti-retaliation provisions of the FMLA. Breeden voluntarily dismissed her Title VII claims in June 2008 in order to join a certified class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In February 2010, the court granted Novartis summary judgment on Breeden’s interference claim but denied it as to the retaliation claim. The case went to trial on March 2, 2010. The jury returned a verdict in her favor on March 5, 2010 on the retaliation claim. The court entered a judgment in Ms. Breeden’s favor in the amount of $579,388.
1 See Parker v. Hahnemann University Hosp. 234 F. Supp. 2d 478, 488 (D.N.J. 2002) (holding that the employer’s motive is relevant when employee brings a retaliation claim, and the employer can defend its action by proving there was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the action).
2 See Snelling v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., 184 F. Supp. 2d 838, 845-46 (S.D. Ind. 2002) (holding that the intent of the employer is immaterial when an employee alleges a deprivation of substantive rights to reinstatement after taking FMLA leave, and the employee must demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence only the eligible employee’s entitlement to the disputed leave).
4 29 U.S.C. § 2612(e)(2)(B) (The employee must give the employer at least 30 days’ notice before the date that the leave is to begin when the need for leave is based on the serious health condition of a spouse, child, or parent, or of the employee, and the need for leave is foreseeable based on planned medical treatment).
5 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(a)(1) (Each employer covered by the FMLA is required to post and keep posted on its premises, in conspicuous places where employees are employed, a notice explaining the FMLA’s provisions and providing information concerning the procedures for filing complaints of violations of the FMLA with the Wage and Hour Division. The notice must be posted prominently where it can be readily seen by employees and applicants for employment. The poster and the text must be large enough to be easily read and contain fully legible text. Electronic posting is sufficient to meet this posting requirement as long as it otherwise meets the requirements of the provision).
6 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(a) (An employer may require that an employee’s leave… due to the employee’s own serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform one or more of the essential functions of the employee’s position, be supported by a certification issued by the health care provider of the employee).
7 29 C.F.R. § 825.215 (Upon return from family or medical leave taken pursuant to § 32-502 or § 32- 503, the employee shall be: (1) Restored by the employer to the position of employment held by the employee when the family or medical leave commenced; or (2) Restored to a position of employment equivalent to the position held by the employee when the family or medical leave commenced that includes equivalent employment benefits, pay, seniority, and other terms and conditions of employment).
8 29 C.F.R. § 825.215(a) (An equivalent position is one that is virtually identical to the employee’s former position in terms of pay, benefits and working conditions, including privileges, prerequisites and status. It must involve the same or substantially similar duties and responsibilities, which must entail substantially equivalent skill, effort, responsibility, and authority).
9 Parker v. Hahnemann University Hosp. 2002 WL 31830647, D.N.J. Dec 18, 2002 (determining whether the job offered is equivalent is generally a question of fact for the jury).
10 Kubicko v. Ogden Logistics Services, 181 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Opposition activity encompasses utilizing informal grievance procedures as well as staging informal protests and voicing one’s opinions in order to bring attention to an employer’s discriminatory activities”).
11 Curl v. Reavis 1983 WL 509 (1983, WDNC) (The jury was entitled to believe an employer’s proffered reason for terminating the employee was a pretext for discrimination where the employer’s stated reason for terminating the employee (i.e. attitude, alleged disloyalty, and disruptiveness) diverged from how the employer had rated her in these areas before her protected activity).
Road Motor Inn, 885 F. Supp. 1370 (D. Nev. 1995) (evidence including employer statements introduced at an unemployment benefits hearing should, presumably, be admitted in a later lawsuit, subject to the normal rules governing admissibility).
13 29 U.S.C. § 2616(b).
14 29 C.F.R. § 825.500(c)(2)-(7).
15 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 73 FR 67934-01, 2008 WL 4898395 (November 7, 2008).
16 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(a)(3).
17 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(c)(1).
18 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(b)(1).
19 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(d).
20 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(d)(5).
21 29 C.F.R. § 825.312.
22 29 C.F.R. § 825.500.

References: § 825
 § 825
 v. 
 §10
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2612
 § 825
 § 825
 § 825
 § 32
 § 32
 § 825
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2616
 § 825
 § 825
 § 825
 § 825
 § 825
 § 825
 § 825
 § 825