Baker Vs. Hunter Douglas
Baker Vs. Hunter Douglas
Ty Hyderally has many years of successful experience in the practice of employment law. He chose to pursue this practice area because he found its complexity interesting and wanted to ensure that his clients were aware of their rights and responsibilities. He travels extensively and spends hours annually educating various audiences about areas pertaining to employment law. One area of employment law which is oftentimes misunderstood is the Family Medical Leave Act or the FMLA. Employers must allow workers adequate leave in cases where they or an immediate family member are ill and in need of care. There are specific guidelines detailing what types of illnesses and conditions are covered by the FMLA as well as the responsibilities of both the employee and the employer. The FMLA protects an employee’s position and job status while they are off on qualified health related matters. However, as we will see in this case, there are some exclusions that apply.
Baker v. Hunter Douglas
Carol Baker was employed by the Marketing Department of Hunter Douglas in 1997. IN 2002 she was promoted to the position of the Senior Administrator for Cooperative Advertising and was made responsible for processing third party claims for dealers. She had trouble keeping up with all the work she was assigned and so Hunter Douglas contracted out with a claims processing company to help assist with the processing of the claims. Baker was able to transfer the processing of the claims to the company while continuing to work on unprocessed claims. She was still overwhelmed by the huge amount of work and soon suffered a “nervous breakdown” due to the stress. After seeking professional help from a doctor, Baker requested 2 months off in order to get her life back in order again. Her supervisors requested that she finish that week and work one more so that they could find a replacement. Baker met with company officials and discussed FMLA policies. At this time Baker was informed that FMLA leave is limited to only 12 weeks.
Baker began her leave on June 16, 2003 and ended it on September 5, 2003. During that time she received short term disability. On the last day of her leave, Baker went to her supervisors to request returning to work only part time. She did not present the required physician certification permitting her return to full time work. She was informed that Hunter Douglas did not have any part time positions and then she was terminated. Baker filed her complaint with the court stating that she was not reinstated to her previous job according to FMLA guidelines. She also began receiving long term disability benefits and claimed that she was being discriminated against because of her disability and that the employer was not accommodating for her disability to work.
The Court’s Final Decision
The court dismissed the FMLA suit since Baker did not establish that she could return to the position full time as she had been doing prior to her 12 week FMLA leave. When an employee has a disability, an employer must make any reasonable accommodations necessary as long as they can otherwise perform their duties. Part time work is an accommodation that is reasonable for an individual with a disability. However, the FMLA does not provide for reasonable accommodations. It does state that an employee can return to their position or a similar one with similar status, but since Baker was not able to neither return to her full time position nor carry out her former job duties at the end of her FMLA leave she was exempt from this protection.
Baker v. Hunter Douglas
Carol Baker was employed by the Marketing Department of Hunter Douglas in 1997. IN 2002 she was promoted to the position of the Senior Administrator for Cooperative Advertising and was made responsible for processing third party claims for dealers. She had trouble keeping up with all the work she was assigned and so Hunter Douglas contracted out with a claims processing company to help assist with the processing of the claims. Baker was able to transfer the processing of the claims to the company while continuing to work on unprocessed claims. She was still overwhelmed by the huge amount of work and soon suffered a “nervous breakdown” due to the stress. After seeking professional help from a doctor, Baker requested 2 months off in order to get her life back in order again. Her supervisors requested that she finish that week and work one more so that they could find a replacement. Baker met with company officials and discussed FMLA policies. At this time Baker was informed that FMLA leave is limited to only 12 weeks.
Baker began her leave on June 16, 2003 and ended it on September 5, 2003. During that time she received short term disability. On the last day of her leave, Baker went to her supervisors to request returning to work only part time. She did not present the required physician certification permitting her return to full time work. She was informed that Hunter Douglas did not have any part time positions and then she was terminated. Baker filed her complaint with the court stating that she was not reinstated to her previous job according to FMLA guidelines. She also began receiving long term disability benefits and claimed that she was being discriminated against because of her disability and that the employer was not accommodating for her disability to work.
The Court’s Final Decision
The court dismissed the FMLA suit since Baker did not establish that she could return to the position full time as she had been doing prior to her 12 week FMLA leave. When an employee has a disability, an employer must make any reasonable accommodations necessary as long as they can otherwise perform their duties. Part time work is an accommodation that is reasonable for an individual with a disability. However, the FMLA does not provide for reasonable accommodations. It does state that an employee can return to their position or a similar one with similar status, but since Baker was not able to neither return to her full time position nor carry out her former job duties at the end of her FMLA leave she was exempt from this protection.