The Swift Pork Company changed Mr. Black’s duties after his return from a several week absence due to pneumonia. Black also cared for his ailing wife and had taken FMLA leave 158 times in three years. Black did not agree to perform the new duties and announced he would “take a vacation until they figured it out.” When his boss denied the vacation request, Black called in sick for the rest of the week and requested FMLA leave. Swift fired Black at the end of the week.

Black sued Swift for interference and discrimination under the FMLA. The FMLA is a federal law that protects an employee’s job when they miss work because of a serious medical need or to care for a family member’s serious medical condition. An employer “interferes” with an employee’s rights when it refuses to authorize FMLA leave that is qualified, or discourages an employee from using it. Black alleged Swift interfered with his rights under the FMLA when refusing to classify his absences as FMLA leave and then firing him when his job should have been protected.

As the plaintiff, Black had the burden to show he was entitled to the benefit denied. Entitlement exists if the absence was both medically necessary and attributable to his, or a family member’s, serious health condition.

The District Court granted Swift’s motion for summary judgment, finding the evidence would not allow a jury to find in favor of Black. On appeal, two judges on the Eighth Circuit disagreed, concluding the facts could support a finding in favor of Black. (One circuit judge filed a dissent, siding with the District Court). Black’s wife suffered 13 heart attacks and thus had a serious health condition. The Court remanded the issue for a jury to determine if it was medical necessary for Black to be home to care for his wife on the days leading to his termination.

However, the Eighth Circuit upheld the District Court’s dismissal of Black’s discrimination claim. An employer may not fire an employee for utilizing FMLA leave. Black claimed his supervisors made negative comments concerning his excessive absences. However, Swift granted Black’s requests for FMLA leave 158 times in under three years. There was no evidence Swift fired Black because he claimed an additional FMLA leave of absence. The Court noted, “[a]fter all, why would [Swift] wait until the 159th time to [fire Black]?” Further, the supervisor’s negative comments about Black’s leave do not support a claim of discrimination because the supervisor did not make the decision to fire Black.

Employers must understand the contours of protections afforded to their employees under the FMLA. The Court’s full analysis, including the dissenting opinion, can be found at: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/24/08/231502P.pdf