To be covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), an employee must work where there are 50 or more employees on-site or within a 75-mile radius. If not, under what circumstances might she still be protected?

What happened. Infohealth Management Corp. provided its employees with a handbook that included a section on “Family and Medical Leave.” The handbook stated that in order to be eligible for FMLA leave, an employee had to have “actively worked for the Company for at least 12 months” and “have worked at least 1,250 hours … during the 12-month period immediately preceding the first day of FMLA leave.” It specified that eligible employees who took time off for the birth of a child were entitled to leave. 

After receiving written and verbal approval from Infohealth, “Paullina” took maternity leave and gave birth to her child on August 1, 2006. She was scheduled to return to work on September 11, but Infohealth fired her on September 7. Paullina sued Infohealth for violating the FMLA. Infohealth moved to dismiss the case at an early stage.

What the court said. Paullina argued that Infohealth was equitably estopped (precluded) from claiming that she was ineligible for FMLA leave based on the handbook and its verbal and written assurances that she was eligible. Infohealth countered that since there were not 50 workers within a 75-mile radius of Paullina’s worksite, she was not protected by FMLA.

The court looked to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had held that “[A]n employer who by his silence misled an employee concerning the employee’s eligibility to family leave might, if the employee reasonably relied and was harmed as a result, be estopped to plead the defense of ineligibility to the employee’s claim to entitlement to family leave.” The district court concluded that “the facts of this case fit neatly into the hypothetical situation laid out by the 7th Circuit.”

The court also rejected Infohealth’s claim that Paullina could not have relied on Infohealth’s assurances regarding her FMLA leave because its employee handbook stated that employees were “at will” and could be fired at any time and for any reason. “This position is at odds with the well-established rule that regardless of whether an employee may be terminated ‘at will,’ the FMLA ‘prohibits an employer from interfering with an employee’s attempt to exercise her right to medical leave,’” the court wrote, allowing Paullina’s case to move forward. Reaux v. Infohealth Management Corp., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 08 C 5068 (2009).

Point to remember: Be certain that neither your employee handbook nor your managers and supervisors are making promises or assurances you did not intend to make, as apparently happened in this case.