Murphy Vs. FedEx International LTL Inc.
Murphy Vs. FedEx International
The FMLA is an area of employment law which provides for up to 12 weeks of medical leave for qualified individuals. Both the employee and the employer have certain responsibilities. Ty Hyderally is an employment lawyer who works diligently to help educate employers and employees about these responsibilities. When an employee does not make proper request, or they does not provide adequate documentation, they may not qualify for FMLA leave. But the employer also has a distinct responsibility of providing adequate training for their supervisors. In this case, a supervisor made a statement which caused the company to be obligated to honor an employee’s request for FMLA.
Murphy v. FedEx National LTL, Inc.
Susan Murphy along with her husband drove for FedEx. Ms. Murphy was granted FMLA leave to care for her husband who had fallen ill. Her FMLA leave commenced on August 31, 2006. One week later, her husband unexpectedly passed away and she called her supervisor, Jeff Karnes, to let him know that her husband had died. She then took her allotted 3 day leave for bereavement. Her supervisor phoned and stated that she had ended her FMLA leave and asked her how much longer she would need off. She told her supervisor that she needed one month off from work in order to “take care of things.” Karnes responded by saying, “Okay, cool, not a problem, I’ll let H.R. know.” Murphy did not pursue any further approval or medical certification for her conditions. She was terminated four days later.
Murphy filed suit against FedEx alleging that the termination was in violation of the FMLA. In the jury trial, Murphy prevailed and was awarded damages. FedEx filed an appeal and the Court agreed with the appeal and sent it back to the trial court.
Supervisor’s Affirmation
The trouble in this case was that Murphy’s supervisor indicated that he would work it out with H.R. Even though Murphy did not give proper notice, the supervisor was aware that her husband who had also worked at FedEx for several years had died suddenly and unexpectedly, that Murphy was noticeably distraught throughout the phone conversation and that she was unable to work the regular night shift since it reminded her of her husband who had just passed away. According to the Court, the jury was allowed to consider the effect of the employee’s mental state and that she had given sufficiency of notice. The court also affirmed that her response to the supervisor and his inquiry about an extended leave while discussing the terms of the FMLA leave, could have been interpreted as Murphy giving adequate notice for the need of an FMLA leave. The main issue then, was whether Murphy had reasonably believed that the leave was approved by her employer based on the response of the supervisor. The Court did conclude that the supervisor’s statement, “okay, cool, not a problem, I’ll let H.R. know” was indeed enough to make Murphy believe it had all been taken care of and that she had been granted further leave under the circumstances.
The Responsibility of the Company
The Court did not make a definite decision as to whether Murphy gave sufficient notice for her FMLA leave or not, but it did state that whether or not adequate notice is given is only decided when considering the totality of the surrounding circumstances. The Court did state that it is very important for a company to adequately train its employees of its procedures for both considering and granting leave according to the FMLA. It is important for supervisors to be familiar with the referral process and what language should be used when making a request to H. R. in order that the final decision be made by that department. The supervisor’s language in this case sealed the decision of the courts who decided for Murphy.
Murphy v. FedEx National LTL, Inc.
Susan Murphy along with her husband drove for FedEx. Ms. Murphy was granted FMLA leave to care for her husband who had fallen ill. Her FMLA leave commenced on August 31, 2006. One week later, her husband unexpectedly passed away and she called her supervisor, Jeff Karnes, to let him know that her husband had died. She then took her allotted 3 day leave for bereavement. Her supervisor phoned and stated that she had ended her FMLA leave and asked her how much longer she would need off. She told her supervisor that she needed one month off from work in order to “take care of things.” Karnes responded by saying, “Okay, cool, not a problem, I’ll let H.R. know.” Murphy did not pursue any further approval or medical certification for her conditions. She was terminated four days later.
Murphy filed suit against FedEx alleging that the termination was in violation of the FMLA. In the jury trial, Murphy prevailed and was awarded damages. FedEx filed an appeal and the Court agreed with the appeal and sent it back to the trial court.
Supervisor’s Affirmation
The trouble in this case was that Murphy’s supervisor indicated that he would work it out with H.R. Even though Murphy did not give proper notice, the supervisor was aware that her husband who had also worked at FedEx for several years had died suddenly and unexpectedly, that Murphy was noticeably distraught throughout the phone conversation and that she was unable to work the regular night shift since it reminded her of her husband who had just passed away. According to the Court, the jury was allowed to consider the effect of the employee’s mental state and that she had given sufficiency of notice. The court also affirmed that her response to the supervisor and his inquiry about an extended leave while discussing the terms of the FMLA leave, could have been interpreted as Murphy giving adequate notice for the need of an FMLA leave. The main issue then, was whether Murphy had reasonably believed that the leave was approved by her employer based on the response of the supervisor. The Court did conclude that the supervisor’s statement, “okay, cool, not a problem, I’ll let H.R. know” was indeed enough to make Murphy believe it had all been taken care of and that she had been granted further leave under the circumstances.
The Responsibility of the Company
The Court did not make a definite decision as to whether Murphy gave sufficient notice for her FMLA leave or not, but it did state that whether or not adequate notice is given is only decided when considering the totality of the surrounding circumstances. The Court did state that it is very important for a company to adequately train its employees of its procedures for both considering and granting leave according to the FMLA. It is important for supervisors to be familiar with the referral process and what language should be used when making a request to H. R. in order that the final decision be made by that department. The supervisor’s language in this case sealed the decision of the courts who decided for Murphy.