Court Opinion

ID: 9498933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:32:52.377572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:10.621674
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority disregards both the plain language and the plain purpose of the FMLA in holding that the City of Republic did not violate Robert Slentz’s rights under the statute.
“Our starting point in interpreting a statute is always the language of the statute itself.” United States v. S.A., 129 F.3d 995, 998 (8th Cir.1997); see also Hennepin County Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 81 F.3d 743, 748 (8th Cir.1996). Twenty-nine U.S.C. § 2614(a)(2) states in clear, unequivocal language that “[t]he taking of leave under section 2612 of this title [FMLA] shall not result in the loss of any employment benefit accrued prior to the date on which the leave commenced.” The statute further states that, “[n]othing in this Act ... shall be construed to diminish the obligation of an employer to comply with a collective bargaining agreement or any employment benefit program or plan that provides greater family or medical leave rights to employees than the rights established under this Act or any amendment made by this Act.” 29 U.S.C. § 2652(a).
The canons of statutory construction also state that “ ‘it is well settled that, in interpreting a statute, the court will not look merely to a particular clause in which general words may be used, but will take in connection with it the whole statute ... and the objects and policy of the law ....’” Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 586, 103 S.Ct. 2017, 76 L.Ed.2d 157 (1983) (quoting Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 194, 15 L.Ed. 595 (1857) (emphasis added in Bob Jones)). The FMLA therefore must be analyzed and construed against the background of the Congressional purposes of the Act.
The final Senate report on section 2614(a)(2) “makes explicit that an employer may not deprive an employee who takes leave of benefits accrued before the date on which the leave commenced.” S.Rep. No. 103-3, at 32 (1993), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1993, 3, 32. The House of Representatives echoed the Senate’s intent concerning section 2614(a)(2). H.R.Rep. No. 103-8(1), at 42 (1993). In a related report, the House states, “[flamily and medical leave are in addition to any annual leave, sick leave, or other leave ... otherwise available to the employee.” H.R.Rep. No. 103-8(11), at 9 (1993).
The Act’s legislative history clearly states Congress’s intent behind the FMLA. The House of Representatives explained that “[a]n employer is required to continue any pre-existing health benefit coverage during the leave period, and at the conclusion of leave, to reinstate the employee to the same or an equivalent position.” H.R.Rep. No. 103-8(1), at 16 (1993). The Senate’s intent was just as plain: “[t]he taking of leave may not deprive the employee of any benefit accrued before the leave, nor does it entitle the employee to any right or benefit other than that to which the employee would have been entitled had the employee not taken the leave.” S.Rep. No. 103-3, at 3 (1993).
The majority correctly notes the congressional intent was to balance the concerns of both employers and employees. Employees are entitled to a minimum of 12 *1013weeks of leave, but are prevented from tacking their FMLA entitlement to the paid leave benefits offered by the employer. See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(d)(2)(B); Ragsdale v. Wolverine Worldwide, Inc., 218 F.3d 933, 939 (8th Cir.2000), aff'd 535 U.S. 81, 122 S.Ct. 1155, 152 L.Ed.2d 167 (2002) (holding that the FMLA was intended to provide a minimum labor standard, assuring that employers would provide employees with 12 weeks of leave each year).
However, the majority ignores the plain language of the statute, which indicates that the FMLA cannot be used to deny Slentz’s benefits that he earned prior to his FMLA leave. The majority additionally suggests that Slentz was attempting to improperly tack on FMLA leave to sick leave he had earned as part of the collective bargaining agreement that Republic negotiated with Slentz’s union. I do not agree. Slentz has conceded that his 12 weeks of FMLA leave ran concurrently with the first 480 hours, or 12 weeks, of his earned sick leave.
Slentz’s action is distinguishable from Ragsdale and Strickland v. Water Works & Sewer Board, 239 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir.2001). In Ragsdale, the plaintiff utilized all of her available leave time, after which she requested further leave under the FMLA. 218 F.3d at 935. This was a classic case of tacking, and, it is agreed, one that is prohibited under the FMLA. Id. at 940. The majority errs in applying Rags-dale to Slentz’s claim because Slentz did not ask his employer to tack on his earned sick leave to his FMLA leave. Instead, he asked Republic to allow his sick leave and FMLA leave to run concurrently, holding Republic accountable under the FMLA Act for the remaining sick leave that he was entitled to under his collective bargaining agreement. As such, Slentz’s request that Republic honor its commitment to provide him the rest of his earned sick leave conforms to the plain language of sections 2614(a)(2) and 2652(a), which required Republic to provide the benefits that had accrued prior to Slentz’s FMLA leave, and to ensure benefits that went above and beyond those provided by the FMLA.
In Strickland, the dispute centered on whether the plaintiff was entitled to take FMLA leave in addition to the paid leave available under his employer’s sick leave policy. 239 F.3d at 1201-02. The court held that the FMLA permits employers to provide the additional weeks necessary to reach the 12 work weeks of leave that is required in 29 U.S.C. § 2612(d)(1). Strickland, 239 F.3d at 1205. Strickland therefore allows the FMLA leave to run concurrently with paid sick leave so that an employer who offers sick leave benefits that are below the 12-week minimum requirement of the FMLA can attain the minimum requirement. Id. at 1205 n. 5, 1206. It is within this context, a context that does not offer leave benefits greater than those provided for in the FMLA, that Strickland guarantees the employee a minimum of 12 weeks FMLA leave while also protecting the employer from having to provide more leave than was negotiated between it and the employee. Id. at 1206.
The majority opinion misapplies Strickland. Slentz has not requested FMLA leave to reach the 12-week minimum of leave; rather, Slentz asks that his FMLA leave run concurrently with his sick leave, requiring Republic to honor its commitment to the 200-plus hours of sick leave that Slentz is entitled to. By applying Strickland outside of its context, the majority shields the employer from complying with its contractual commitments, and bypasses the express intent of the FMLA to safeguard agreements that provide benefits that are greater than those provided for by the FMLA.
*1014The majority opines that the FMLA is not only a minimum labor standard, but also a maximum one. This may be correct absent a collective bargaining agreement that does not provide additional leave rights. But when greater medical or leave rights are bargained for, Congress clearly stated that the FMLA could not be used to erase those rights. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 2614(a)(2), 2652(a). This, however, is precisely what Republic did. It used the FMLA to erase the benefits that Slentz had remaining after his FMLA leave, in direct violation of section 2614(a)(2). By refusing to enforce the clear legislative language, the majority allows Republic to use the FMLA to abrogate Slentz’s existing benefits.
The majority’s decision disregards the congressional purpose behind the FMLA. While it rightly attempts to balance employee and employer concerns, it wrongly excludes from its interpretation of the FMLA the congressional intent to protect Slentz’s rights to the 282 hours of sick leave he had remaining after his FMLA leave expired. Consequently, Republic is allowed to use the FMLA as a knife to whittle away the benefit plan it provided its employee. I would reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand to the district court with instructions to enter an order reinstating Slentz to his former position with equivalent pay, benefits, status, and the other terms and conditions of his employment.