Parakhone v. Nissan North America, (6th Cir. April 2, 2003)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03a0098p.06
In this case, the Sixth Circuit held that an employer could terminate an employee who worked during his FMLA leave in violation of his employer’s stated policy. Plaintiff, who was a production technician at an automobile plant, requested four weeks of FMLA leave to care for his wife who was expected to give birth. The FMLA leave was granted and Plaintiff gave his employer a phone number where he could be reached. This phone number was his wife’s restaurant. The Employer was suspicious about this so it decided to contact the Plaintiff. The Employer contacted Plaintiff on the first day of his leave and warned him that it was against company policy to work while on FMLA leave. The Plaintiff, however, continued to work during the duration of his FMLA leave. When the Plaintiff returned to work at the end of his FMLA leave, he was terminated.
The Plaintiff brought suit in federal court asserting a claim for a violation of the FMLA. The district court granted the Defendant’s Summary Judgment motion and the Plaintiff appealed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the FMLA claim, because it determined that the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff because he violated the Defendant’s neutral policy of not allowing employees to work while on FMLA leave. The policy was stated in the employee handbook and Plaintiff was warned on the first day of his FMLA leave about the policy. Despite this, Plaintiff continued to work during the four weeks of FMLA leave. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit determined that Plaintiff did not prove his taking FMLA leave was a factor in the employer’s decision to terminate him. The court instead determined that the decision was based solely on the employer’s legitimate policy to not allow employees to work while on FMLA leave.
SIXTH RULES THAT COST-SPLITTING PROVISION AND REMEDY LIMITATION CONTAINED IN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ARE UNENFORCEABLE.