Could ‘Loin-Puller’ Mechanic Sue Pork Processor for FMLA Interference?

What Do You Think?

Sometimes it takes a jury to decide whether an employee has established an FMLA interference claim. A case in point involves an employee who worked as a skilled mechanic at a pork-processing plant, where he operated and fixed the loin-puller machine. He was married to a woman who had already had 13 heart attacks. Her heart condition which sometimes flared up, requiring him to transport her to the hospital. 

The FMLA paperwork from the wife’s doctor estimated that her cardiovascular disease would "flare up" approximately four times per month, with each occurrence lasting about two days. The mechanic often took leave to assist her.

The trouble began when the mechanic arrived at the plant after being out for several weeks with pneumonia. When he left the house, his wife was having some chest pains. There were two stories about what happened next:

1. Employee’s description of what occurred: The company fired him because he wanted to take FMLA leave to care for his seriously ill wife.
2. Company’s description of what occurred: The employee stormed off because his supervisor gave him an assignment he didn’t like.

The evidence indicated that when the mechanic arrived that morning, his supervisor told him he would receive a different assignment. According to the mechanic, his wife then told him that her symptoms were flaring. He requested five days of vacation time, which was denied.

He then told his supervisor he was going home on FMLA leave because his wife “didn’t feel very good.” He didn’t come back the next day, and called in sick after that.

A few days later, the company fired him. He sued it for FMLA interference. The company asked the court to dismiss the case.

For the case to go to a jury, the mechanic had to show that:

1. He was entitled to a benefit under the FMLA;
2. The employer interfered with that entitlement; and
3. The reason for the denial of the benefit was connected to his FMLA leave.

Further, an employee is entitled to intermittent leave to care for a family member under the FMLA if he can show that his absence was:

1. Medically necessary; and
2. Attributable to a family member's serious health condition

Could the mechanic’s interference case go to trial?

A. Yes. There was enough evidence to suggest a potential link between his FMLA request and termination.

B. No. Looks like he just didn’t want to do that new assignment and – understandably – preferred being home with his wife over spending his day in a pork processing plant babysitting “loin-pullers.”

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Black v. Swift Pork Co., No. 23-1502 (8th Cir. 01/11/24).

After 13 heart attacks, the court stated, no one seriously disputed that the mechanic’s wife had a serious health condition. Instead, the dispute was about whether it was "medically necessary" for the employee to be at home to care for her those days.

The doctor’s paperwork indicated that the chest pain symptoms were exactly the situation where the mechanic would be needed at home. The mechanic certainly provided little detail about her state when he left work that day.

However,” a jury could reasonably conclude, based on her symptoms and the doctor's paperwork, that his presence at home was ‘medically necessary,’" the court wrote. The company arguably fired him because it declined to count his absence as FMLA leave, the court remarked.

On the other hand, the fact that the mechanic first requested vacation time, and that he was frustrated with his new assignment, suggested he may have had a different motivation for leaving. Further, he initially decided to come into work, even though his wife had already been experiencing chest pains.

“What we have, in other words, is a classic dispute of material fact for a jury to resolve,” the court wrote.

The court held that the case could go to a jury.

Share This Article: