Ryan v. Community Based Services

Background

Stephanie Ryan sued Community Based Services, Inc. (CBS), alleging interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Ryan alleged that she was eligible for FMLA leave and that CBS was a covered employer. She worked as a House Supervisor and alleged that she performed satisfactorily and had not received a negative performance review.

Ryan alleged that her father suffered a heart attack in early December 2023. On December 20 and 21, she told CBS representatives that she might need leave to care for him. She and CBS’s human-resources manager discussed FMLA leave, and the manager provided FMLA paperwork. Ryan alleged that the manager did not tell her when the paperwork was due, that medical certification was required, or what would happen if she did not provide it. Ryan alleged that she formally requested FMLA leave on December 31, 2023.

CBS required Ryan to use available requested time off and paid sick leave before taking FMLA leave. In January 2024, Ryan used those types of leave. She alleged that CBS instructed her to place an out-of-office notice on her email and notify the families connected to the people she served. She also alleged that she continued helping with a state audit, responded to work communications, and performed payroll duties while on leave. CBS later cut off her work-email access.

Ryan alleged that CBS told her on January 29, 2024, that she had been terminated effective January 26 for taking unauthorized leave. She alleged that CBS had sent notices to a personal email account she had not used for years and by certified mail, but that she did not receive the notices. One letter requested that she submit her FMLA forms by January 26 and return to work by January 29 if she did not submit them. Ryan alleged that she gave the medical certification to her father’s cardiologist on January 9 and received the completed certification on February 2.

Documents Considered on the Motion

CBS attached an email, letters, and FMLA paperwork to its motion to dismiss. The court concluded that Ryan’s amended complaint made clear and substantial references to those documents, so the documents were incorporated into the complaint and could be considered at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court could consider them as evidence that the documents existed and what they contained, but not generally for the truth of disputed assertions in them.

The court noted that Ryan disputed the deadline for returning the paperwork but did not dispute that the documents were facially authentic. The court also rejected CBS’s argument that the documents necessarily contradicted Ryan’s allegations. In particular, the court found that the December 22, 2023 email was consistent with Ryan’s allegation that she did not yet know whether or when she would take FMLA leave. The court stated that documentary evidence did not override Ryan’s contrary factual allegations at this stage.

FMLA Interference Claim

An FMLA interference claim requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege that she was an eligible employee, the defendant was a covered employer, she was entitled to FMLA leave, she gave notice of her intention to take leave, and she was denied FMLA benefits to which she was entitled. CBS did not dispute the first three elements. Its principal argument was that Ryan had not given adequate notice because she did not timely return the paperwork, particularly the medical certification.

The court held that Ryan plausibly alleged adequate notice. An employee need not expressly invoke the FMLA or use the term “FMLA” if the notice reasonably indicates that the law may apply. Ryan alleged that she told CBS about her father’s illness, discussed FMLA leave with CBS’s human-resources manager, received FMLA paperwork, and formally requested FMLA leave on December 31, 2023. Drawing reasonable inferences in Ryan’s favor, the court found those allegations sufficient at the pleading stage.

The court also concluded that Ryan plausibly alleged diligent, good-faith efforts to obtain the medical certification. Federal regulations generally allow an employer to require certification and generally require the employee to provide it within 15 calendar days after the request, unless doing so is impracticable despite diligent, good-faith efforts or the employer allows more time. The court found that Ryan’s allegation that she gave the certification to her father’s cardiologist on January 9 could satisfy this exception.

The court noted that CBS did not present a separate, developed argument concerning the interference claim’s fifth element—whether Ryan was denied benefits under the FMLA. Because Ryan plausibly alleged the notice element and CBS’s argument focused on the paperwork issue, the court declined to make additional arguments for CBS. The court denied the motion on the FMLA interference claim.

FMLA Retaliation Claim

An FMLA retaliation claim requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege that she exercised FMLA rights, was qualified for her position, suffered an adverse employment action, and experienced that action under circumstances suggesting retaliatory intent. CBS did not dispute that Ryan was qualified or that her termination could constitute an adverse employment action.

The court found that Ryan plausibly alleged that she exercised protected FMLA rights through her notice that she might take leave and her December 31 request for FMLA leave. The court rejected CBS’s argument that Ryan had to have actually taken FMLA leave to satisfy this requirement.

The court also found that the timing supported an inference of retaliatory intent. Ryan allegedly notified CBS about the possibility of FMLA leave beginning December 20, formally requested leave on December 31, and was terminated effective January 26. The approximately one-month gap was sufficient to support an inference of retaliation at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court did not decide whether the restriction of Ryan’s work-email access independently supported a retaliation claim because it found that the alleged termination was enough for the claim to proceed.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied CBS’s motion to dismiss. The court denied the motion as to both Ryan’s FMLA interference claim and her FMLA retaliation claim. The opinion does not decide the ultimate merits of either claim. The court also scheduled a telephonic status conference for October 3, 2025.