District Court rejects plaintiff’s attempt to argue that his employer was equitably estopped from asserting that it was not subject to the FMLA.

The employee asserted that his former employer interfered with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act and retaliated against him when it terminated his employment on the day he was scheduled to return from medical leave. The employer’s employee handbook specified that employees were entitled to take medical leave in accordance with the statutory requirements in the FMLA. The employee took a short medical leave, and, during the time period when he was on leave, the employer determined that he failed to adequately prepare the employer for its move to a new office. As a result, his employment was terminated, and the employee later filed his FMLA lawsuit. After discovery was completed, the employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was not subject to the FMLA because it never employed 50 or more employees. The employee, however, argued that the employer was “equitably estopped” from arguing that it was not subject to the FMLA because its employee handbook expressly provided for FMLA coverage and leave. The court, however, rejected the employee’s argument, noting that, while the employee handbook’s provision satisfied the employee’s burden of establishing a “misrepresentation,” the employee nonetheless failed to demonstrate that he detrimentally relied on that misrepresentation. In so finding, the court reasoned that the plaintiff never read the employee handbook and there were no facts in the record to establish that the employee’s “decision to have the surgery was contingent on his understanding of his FMLA status.”

This opinion should serve as notice to employers with less than 50 employees (within a 75-mile radius of their office location) in Pennsylvania to review their employee handbooks to determine whether or not they have mistakenly offered “FMLA” coverage to their employees.

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2016}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2016 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}