Daily Labor Report® is the objective resource the nation’s foremost labor and employment professionals read and rely on, providing reliable, analytical coverage of top labor and employment...
Aug. 5 — A Corinthian Colleges Inc. instructor in Pennsylvania fired after exceeding 12 weeks of leave for depression may pursue Family and Medical Leave Act interference and retaliation claims because a reasonable jury could find the employer failed to notify her she was on FMLA leave, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Aug. 5.
Corinthian argued it had mailed Lisa Lupyan a letter informing her she was on FMLA leave limited to 12 weeks. Lupyan said she never got the alleged letter, but a federal district court granted summary judgment to Corinthian, saying Lupyan couldn't overcome a presumption of receipt under the common law “mailbox rule” (2011 BL 230952 (W.D. Pa. 2011)).
Reversing the district court, the Third Circuit said Lupyan's assertion she never received the letter raises a jury issue that Corinthian never provided actual notice she was on time-restricted FMLA leave, especially since Corinthian easily could have notified Lupyan by certified or registered mail or via electronic means that require acknowledgement of receipt.
The mailbox rule, which presumes letters sent through the U.S. Postal Service are received three days later, is rebuttable, Judge Theodore A. McKee wrote.
Citing Federal Rule of Evidence 301, the court said Lupyan's contention she lacked notice that her leave was subject to the FMLA's time limitation because she never received Corinthian's letter “sufficiently burst the mailbox rule's presumption” and requires a jury to weigh the credibility of Lupyan's and Corinthian's conflicting testimony.
Nothing in the FMLA or Labor Department regulations “suggests a legislative intent to provide a stronger presumption there than would otherwise apply under Rule 301,” the court said. “[E]vidence sufficient to nullify the presumption of receipt under the mailbox rule may consist solely of the addressee's positive denial of receipt, creating an issue of fact for the jury.”
Requiring additional rebuttal evidence to get to a jury would make the mailbox rule “a conclusive presumption that would be equivalent to an ironclad rule,” the court said.
“In this age of computerized communications and handheld devices, it is certainly not expecting too much to require businesses that wish to avoid a material dispute about the receipt of a letter to use some form of mailing that includes verifiable receipt when mailing something as important as a legally mandated notice,” the court said.
Lupyan's termination is sufficient evidence of prejudice from the alleged lack of notice to raise an FMLA interference claim, even though Corinthian indisputably provided 12 weeks of leave, the court said.
Lupyan also has a triable FMLA retaliation claim, as a reasonable jury could find Corinthian's contentions that Lupyan was terminated either because she had exhausted FMLA leave or because student enrollment had decreased were pretexts for firing her for protected leave, the court said.
“[E]vidence sufficient to nullify the presumption of receipt under the mailbox rule may consist solely of the addressee's positive denial of receipt, creating an issue of fact for the jury,” the court said.
Corinthian's own witness testified the school as a matter of policy didn't lay off instructors because of enrollment downturns, the court said.
“Given the unusual nature of her termination and its proximity to Lupyan's leave, a jury could reasonably conclude that Lupyan's request for FMLA leave motivated this differential treatment,” the court said.
Judges Julio M. Fuentes and Berle Schiller joined in the decision.
The Williams Law Office represented Lupyan. Feldstein Grinberg Lang & McKee represented Corinthian Colleges.
To contact the reporter on this story: Kevin McGowan in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Susan McGolrick at firstname.lastname@example.org
Text of the opinion is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Lisa_Lupyan_v_Corinthian_Colleges_Inc_et_al_Docket_No_1301843_3d_.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)