Sarah has recently been diagnosed with a chronic health condition that causes severe fatigue and occasional mobility issues. Her doctor recommends that she take 2 days off per week for treatments and recovery for the next three months. This is known as intermittent Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave.
Sarah submits her FMLA paperwork to human resources (HR). Her manager, Robert, initially approves the request but then informs Sarah that she must come into the office on the 3 days per week that she is working, rather than working from home like her colleagues. Robert claims that he needs to directly supervise employees who are on intermittent FMLA leave to ensure productivity.
Sarah points out that she has been successfully working from home for months, her performance metrics have remained strong, and coming to the office would make her medical condition worse because of the commute to the office. Robert says that this is company policy for anyone on FMLA leave. When Sarah continues to work from home on her non-FMLA days, she receives a disciplinary warning, even though she was meeting all of her performance targets.
Since FMLA was enacted in 1993, the workforce has evolved. Many FMLA cases are won by the side with the most logical and legal justification of their actions.
What argument might Sarah use to support her view that TechSupport Inc.'s requirement that she work in the office while on intermittent FMLA leave violates FMLA?
What FMLA provisions might support TechSupport Inc.'s right to require that Sarah return to the office during her 3 workdays?
What potential damages or remedies might Sarah be entitled to if she files a successful FMLA claim?
What steps should Sarah take to protect her rights in this situation?
Sample Answer
ah should argue that TechSupport Inc.'s requirement that she return to the office constitutes FMLA Interference and Retaliation.
FMLA Interference Claim (Violation of Substantive Rights):
The Right to Equivalent Terms and Conditions of Employment: FMLA regulations prohibit an employer from interfering with an employee's exercise of their FMLA rights. The rule requires that an employee returning from FMLA leave be restored to the same or an equivalent position, which includes equivalent "other terms and conditions of employment." Since Sarah was successfully working from home prior to her leave request, requiring her to report to the office is a change to a key term of her employment (work location) and a less favorable working condition.
-
The "Impairment" of FMLA Leave: Sarah can argue the commute and office presence would make her medical condition worse, which directly undermines the purpose of her intermittent leave—to manage her severe fatigue and mobility issues. By imposing a condition that makes the use of her intermittent leave effectively impossible or detrimental to her health, the employer is interfering with her right to properly utilize the approved leave.
FMLA Retaliation/Discrimination Claim:
Adverse Employment Action Linked to Leave: Sarah's successful work-from-home status and strong performance metrics create a "suspicious timing" scenario. The disciplinary warning she received for working from home only happened after she started using FMLA. She can argue that the adverse action (the forced return to office and the warning) was taken because she exercised her right to intermittent FMLA leave, which is prohibited under the FMLA.
Performance Metrics: The fact that she was disciplined while meeting all performance targets weakens Robert’s claim that direct supervision is necessary for productivity. This suggests the real reason is not performance, but prejudice against her use of FMLA.
FMLA Provisions Supporting TechSupport Inc.
While Robert's reasoning is weak, TechSupport Inc. has one primary FMLA provision that supports its right to change Sarah's work location under certain circumstances:
Temporary Transfer for Intermittent Leave (29 CFR § 825.204): The FMLA permits an employer to require an employee to transfer temporarily to an available alternative position for which the employee is qualified and which better accommodates intermittent leave or a reduced leave schedule.
The Employer's Argument: TechSupport Inc. might argue that Sarah's regular remote position does not "better accommodate" the intermittent leave because Robert needs to closely monitor her attendance and ensure she is not misusing the leave on her scheduled work days. The "alternative position" (working in the office) is an effort to better accommodate the business's need for supervision during intermittent leave.
The Manager's Claim: Robert’s claim that he needs to "directly supervise employees who are on intermittent FMLA leave to ensure productivity" is likely the basis for this argument, positioning the in-office work as a necessary "alternative position" while Sarah is on intermittent leave. However, this argument is highly vulnerable if Sarah can prove the new work location is a demonstrably harder, or retaliatory, term of employment than her former position.