Employers Can Be Held Responsible For Interfering With Employees’ Rights
Both the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, and Washington's Family Leave Act (WFLA), RCW 50A, et seq. are intended to provide job security to employees who need to take leave for medical reasons. The FMLA affords eligible employees up to twelve weeks of leave each year for their own serious illnesses or to care for family members, and guarantees them reinstatement after exercising their leave rights. 29 U.S.C. §§ 2612(a)(1), 2614(a)(1). The WFLA mirrors its federal counterpart and provides that Courts are supposed to interpret its provisions in a manner consistent with similar provisions of the FMLA.
Both acts declare it to be unlawful for an employer to interfere with an employee’s leave or to retaliate against employees for taking leave. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1), (a)(2), (b); RCW 50A.40.010. These prohibition against interference “encompasses an employer's consideration of an employee's use of FMLA-covered leave in making adverse employment decisions.” Bachelder v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112, 1122 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c)).
One key difference between the two acts is that the WFLA does provide enhanced privacy protections which provide that employers are only entitled to “(a) [i]ts own records relating to any claim or determination for family or medical leave benefits by an individual; (b) [r]ecords and information relating to a decision to allow or deny benefits if the decision is based on material information provided by the employer; and (c) [r]ecords and information related to that employer’s premium assessment.” RCW 50A.25.040(2)(a)-(c). The employer is entitled to know that the employee is applying for leave and he anticipated time for the leave but is not entitled to specific information of the employee’s health condition.
If an employee chooses to pursue an claim against their employer for interference with taking leave, “an employee must establish that (1) he was eligible for the FMLA's protections, (2) his employer was covered by the FMLA, (3) he was entitled to leave under the FMLA, (4) he provided sufficient notice of his intent to take leave, and (5) his employer denied him FMLA benefits to which he was entitled.” Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1243 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations and quotation marks omitted). The analysis is identical for an employee to make out a prima facie case of WFLA interference. Crawford v. JP Morgan Chase NA, 983 F.Supp.2d 1264, 1270-71 (W.D. Wash. 2013). If the employee is successful in holding their employer accountable for interfering with the employee’s right to medical leave, they will be liable to the employer for consequential monetary damages and equitable relief which could lead to reinstatement or even promotion. See Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81, 81, 122 S. Ct. 1155, 1157, 152 L.Ed.2d 167 (2002).
If an employer is found to have deterred an employee from taking FMLA/WFLA leave or otherwise interfered with their ability to take leave, monetary damages, at a minimum, would include lost wages, benefits, and out-of-pocket expenses in addition to liquidated damages calculated to be equal to the other damages awarded. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1); RCW 50A.40.030. Additionally, an employer will be subject to paying the employee’s attorneys’ fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(3) and RCW 50A.40.040(3). This is a departure from the standard rule that each party pays their attorneys’ fees regardless of who wins.