Moncion v. Flat Rate Movers Ltd

Background

Taniel Moncion brought a claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), a federal law that provides certain qualifying employees with protected medical and family leave, alleging that Flat Rate Movers, Ltd. interfered with her FMLA rights. Moncion moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in her favor without a trial because she contended that no important facts were genuinely disputed.

The central dispute was whether Moncion resigned before taking FMLA leave. Flat Rate claimed that Moncion quit and left the office during a May 16, 2019 meeting, and that the resignation was entered into the company’s system on May 24, 2019. Moncion’s motion papers did not discuss the alleged May 16 meeting.

Moncion asserted that she met with David Giampietro, Flat Rate’s Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel, and the company’s Human Resources Manager on May 28, 2019, to discuss FMLA leave. She alleged that Giampietro verbally approved a three-month medical leave. Flat Rate disputed these events and appeared to dispute whether the May 28 meeting occurred. The parties did not dispute that Flat Rate accepted Moncion’s May 30, 2019 U.S. Department of Labor FMLA health-care-provider certification form.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate when admissible evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about any important fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A genuine dispute exists when a reasonable jury could decide the disputed fact for the opposing party. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.

Court’s analysis

The court identified a genuine dispute about Moncion’s employment relationship with Flat Rate. The FMLA regulation cited by the court states that an employer’s FMLA obligations to restore an employee cease if the employee gives clear notice that she will not return to work. Those obligations continue if the employee indicates that she may be unable to return but continues to express a desire to do so.

Flat Rate relied on its account that Moncion quit on May 16, 2019. But Moncion produced an August 19, 2019 email to Flat Rate’s Human Resources Manager stating, “I’ll be returning to work this Wednesday.” The Human Resources Manager responded that David was working on a plan to transition her back to work and that the company would contact her with the plan. The court stated that this evidence suggested, at minimum, that Moncion did not believe she had resigned.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Moncion’s motion for summary judgment. The court did not resolve whether Moncion resigned, whether the FMLA protections applied, or whether Flat Rate ultimately interfered with those protections. The clerk was directed to close the motion, and the parties were ordered to file a joint status report within 14 days about how they wished to proceed.