Generous Leave Bars Claim that Clinic Never Explained Worker's FMLA Rights

Shelby, MT (WorkersCompensation.com) – An employee’s FMLA claim can fall short for a variety of reasons, including when the worker can’t show that she suffered any harm from the alleged violation.

That was one of three reasons a court relied on in Jergens v. Marias Medical Center, No. 21-35688 (9th Cir. 05/19/22) when it held that a long-time employee could not proceed with her claim that a medical clinic never notified her of her right to FMLA leave.

The clinic placed the employee on administrative leave in July 2015 while it investigated possible workplace misconduct. The employee, who purportedly suffered from anxiety related to the investigation, sued the clinic, asserting state law tort and wrongful termination claims. The clinic terminated her in August 2015. In 2018, she filed a second lawsuit for discrimination.

The employee brought a third lawsuit in 2020, contending that the clinic violated the FMLA by failing to inform her that she was entitled to 12 weeks of leave under the statute. A District Court ruled in her favor, and the employee appealed.

The federal appeals court explained that an FMLA claim requires a showing that the employee suffered harm as a result of the alleged violation.

The court acknowledged that a jury in the previous litigation found that the clinic violated state employment law when it terminated the worker. However, the court observed that the employee was not arguing that the clinic fired her job because she was eligible to take FMLA leave. Rather, she was basing her claim on lack of notice.

The court went on to address three reasons for upholding the District Court’s ruling in the clinic’s favor.

First, the court observed, the employee could not establish that she was prejudiced as result of not being offered FMLA leave. "Even assuming that [medical clinic] violated the FMLA, [it] provided [the employee] with paid leave that was more generous than the leave [she] was guaranteed under the FMLA," the court wrote.

Second, the court found her claim was untimely, as she filed it more than three years after the alleged violation occurred — August 2015, when the clinic terminated her.

Third, her claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, the court held. That doctrine generally bars an employee from litigating claims she could have raised in a prior action involving the same parties and subject matter if the employee could have asserted the claim in the prior case and the prior case ended in a final judgment on the merits. All of those things were true here, the court held. The employee could have brought the claim in either of the prior cases, but she did not.

The chart below highlights the three bases for the court’s decision – three arguments that could possibly stop an FMLA claim in its tracks.

Share This Article: