The issue before the Fourth Circuit in Csicsmann v. Sallada was whether an employer had retaliated against an employee who had taken leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) by eliminating his position while he was on leave, restoring him to a different position when he returned and later eliminating that position as well. The court held that the company did not violate the FMLA, because plaintiff received an “equivalent Position” upon his return to work and the merger and subsequent reorganization of his company clearly was a legitimate business reason for terminating his employment.
In this case, a manager in a company’s information technology (IT) department took FMLA leave for hip surgery. During his leave, the company eliminated his position. Upon his return, the company assigned the employee to a different IT job with the same salary, title, bonus eligibility, and retirement and health care benefits as the prior job.
The next month, the company merged with another company. As part of the merger, the employee’s position was eliminated, and the employee was discharged. The employee brought suit against the company, alleging that, because he had taken FMLA leave, the employer retaliated and discriminated against him by failing to restore him to an equivalent position.
INTANGIBLE VS. MEASURABLE DIFF
The Fourth Circuit first noted that the FMLA allows two options when employees return from qualifying leave: An employee can return to his previous position, or the employee can return to an “equivalent” position with “equivalent employment benefits, pay, and other” employment terms. In other words, under the FMLA, employees returning from FMLA leave do not have an absolute entitlement to be restored to their previous positions.
In this case, there was no dispute that the IT manager’s salary, title, bonus eligibility, health care and retirement benefits remained the same upon return from FMLA leave. Further, the employee continued to work the same schedule in the same physical office. The court, therefore, held that both positions’ “concrete and measurable” aspects were exactly the same.
In response, the IT manager argued that his new position wasn’t “equivalent” to the position eliminated while he was on FMLA leave because the new position was less prestigious and less visible. The Fourth Circuit rejected this argument, noting that an equivalency determination excludes a position’s intangible aspects. Regulations under the FMLA state the requirement of equivalent employment terms “does not extend to de minimis or intangible, unmeasurable” job aspects. The court held that the concrete and measurable aspects of the preFMLA leave position and post-FMLA leave position were exactly the same.
Finally, the IT manager argued that the new position was ultimately slated for layoff while his previous position was not part of the layoff. The court rejected this argument because the company had eliminated his previous position before he returned from FMLA leave, and eventually closed the entire department after the merger.
JOBS CAN LEGITIMATELY BE ELIMINATED
This case demonstrates that the FMLA does not provide employees who take leave under it with an absolute right to return to their exact same positions. The FMLA permits reinstatements to “equivalent” positions. Moreover, an employer may make legitimate business decisions that can result in eliminating an employee’s job altogether, even if that employee is on FMLA leave.