Court Finds HR Director Can be Held Personally Liable for FMLA Violations

On March 17, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, in part, that a Human Resources director may potentially be individually liable for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

In Graziado v. Culinary Institute of America, Shaynan Garrioch, & Loreen Gardella, No. 15-888 (2nd Cir. 2016), Cathleen Graziado filed a lawsuit against her employer, alleging interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Graziado, a Payroll Administrator for the Culinary Institute of America (CIA) was terminated when she had to take successive time off to care for her two minor sons and their respective health concerns. Subsequently, in what was described as an “excruciating exchange”, the Plaintiff and HR Director Shaynan Garrioch engaged in a protracted chain of correspondence about Graziado’s taking leave under the FMLA. Plaintiff made calls and sent numerous emails to the HR Director who, in a delayed response, informed Graziado’s paperwork was deficient and would need to be corrected. Plaintiff sent a series of emails in which she stated her intent to return to work, requested a temporary reduced schedule. She also sought clarification with regard to the specific paperwork Garrioch was requesting and provided a doctor’s note and an updated certification for her sons, which the HR Director rejected as failing to establish medical necessity. The circular exchange continued and attempts to schedule a meeting did not transpire, so Plaintiff retained an attorney. One week later, she received a letter from the HR Director, informing her that she was terminated for “abandoning her employment.”

The District Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants, holding that neither CIA nor the HR Director constituted an “employer” under the FMLA and therefore could not be held individually liable. The trial court also rejected her FMLA interference and retaliation, in addition to the ADA associational discrimination claim.

Conversely, the Second Circuit held that Garrioch exercised sufficient control over Plaintiff’s employment to be subject to individual liability under the FMLA. Adopting the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)’s definition of employer, the Court determined there was sufficient evidence that the HR Director had the power to hire and fire Plaintiff, and supervised and controlled Graziado’s work schedule or condition of employment, pursuant to the “economic reality test.” The Court also held that CIA was liable for FMLA interference and retaliation, but affirmed the district court’s denial of her ADA claim.

Importantly, the Second Circuit noted the employer’s “deliberate unresponsiveness” which “may itself run afoul of the FMLA’s explicit requirement that employers ‘responsively answer questions from employees concerning their rights and responsibilities under the FMLA.” Employers should be vigilant about effectively communicating with their employees and timely addressing any FMLA-related inquiries and concerns.