New Court Ruling on FMLA Interference Clarifies Employers Can Violate Law Without Actually Denying Employee Requests

In a significant development, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has expanded the interpretation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), ruling that employers can violate the law simply by discouraging employees from exercising their rights, even if the employee’s request for leave is ultimately granted. This ruling, outlined in the case Kemp v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., sets a new precedent by clarifying and confirming that interference with FMLA rights does not require an outright denial of leave, but can occur through more subtle forms of discouragement. Despite this key ruling, the plaintiff in this case lost their appeal due to statute of limitations issues.

Plaintiff Kemp sought leave under the FMLA to care for her disabled daughter. Her supervisor, however, expressed concerns about her time away from work and encouraged her to be physically present in the office more often, despite other employees working from home. While Kemp was ultimately granted intermittent FMLA leave, her employer suggested she consider a less demanding role. Kemp accepted a newly developed senior management position in October 2016 but resigned shortly after in December 2016. Kemp later sued her employer, alleging interference with her FMLA rights and associational discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). At the trial court level, Regeneron moved for summary judgment on Kemp’s FMLA claim.  The District Court granted the motion, holding that because Regeneron did not reject the request for FMLA leave but merely discouraged Kemp from taking it, she could not establish any FMLA violation and her case was dismissed.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court’s rationale, holding that discouragement from taking FMLA leave can itself violate the Act, even if the employee is not outright denied the leave. The ruling affirms that “interference or restraint alone, which includes discouragement, is enough to establish such a violation” of the FMLA. This adds a new layer of protection for employees by acknowledging that pressure from management can be an unlawful deterrent, even when formal FMLA requests are approved.

Although the Court found Kemp raised a valid claim, her case was ultimately dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. The general statute of limitations under the FMLA is two years, but Kemp filed her lawsuit after this period had expired. To extend the limit to three years, Kemp needed to prove that Regeneron’s interference was “willful.” The Court ruled that while there were questionable actions by the employer, they did not rise to the level of willfulness as it appeared the employer was trying to comply with FMLA obligations, not recklessly disregard them.

The ruling on FMLA interference is significant as it emphasizes that employers must not create an environment that pressures employees to avoid taking their entitled leave. Even subtle forms of discouragement, such as voicing concerns about an employee’s absence or suggesting they seek a less demanding position, may now constitute interference under the FMLA. While Kemp was unsuccessful in her appeal due to timing issues, the case sets a precedent that will help future employees who face discouragement from taking medical leave. Employers, on the other hand, should take note of this ruling and ensure that their policies and management practices do not indirectly deter employees from exercising their rights under the FMLA.