Employee Fails to Prove Equitable Estoppel Regarding her FMLA Eligibility

How specific does an FMLA request have to be? And does an employer's "approval" of a request for leave automatically render that leave to be deemed FMLA leave? Those issues were recently addressed in this Eleventh Circuit opinion.

In Dawkins v. Fulton County Government, No. 12-11951 (11th Cir., September 30, 2013), the building maintenance manager was temporarily reassigned to a better position with a higher salary. Two weeks later, she needed time off to care for her terminally ill uncle. She sent her manager an email entitled "FMLA" and asking for emergency leave and for a Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) package. The manager simply wrote back "approved." Four days later, the employer rescinded the temporary reassignment due to her absence. When she returned to work, she returned to her regular building maintenance manager position.  

Five months later, the employee filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on an unrelated issue, but during the investigation, complained about her removal from the temporary reassignment. The employee then filed a complaint against the employer, alleging constitutional violations, Title VII retaliation, FMLA retaliation, and emotional distress. The employee claimed that her employer demoted her from the temporary assignment in retaliation for taking time off in order to care for her sick uncle. Though she admits that the leave was not protected under the FMLA, she nevertheless claims that she was approved for FMLA leave, and thus, her employer should be equitably estopped from disputing her FMLA eligibility.  

The employer sought summary judgment, and the employee filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the FMLA retaliation claim, arguing for the first time that the employer should be estopped from denying that the leave was FMLA qualifying where she had been approved for leave and because no one ever told her her leave was not FMLA leave.

The district court found that the absence did not qualify as FMLA leave, and that the 11th Circuit has never previously applied equitable estoppel to expand FMLA coverage to unqualified absences. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The employee appealed. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, however, did not agree with the employee's challenge and upheld the district court's order. The appellate court found that summary judgment was appropriate because the employee did not contend that she reasonably and detrimentally relied on any misrepresentation. Because she could not produce evidence of an essential element of the equitable estoppel claim, the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the employer.

The Court of Appeals declined to determine whether federal common law equitable estoppel is applicable to the FMLA. This issue, therefore, remains undecided, and may rear its ugly head in a future case, as it certainly presents a novel issue in the context of requests and approvals for emergency leave. Indeed, this case signals that employers should nevertheless take caution when responding to such requests, ensuring that a vague "approval" does not somehow constitute an admission of eligibility for protected leave.