Worker with Signs of Depression Wins FMLA Lawsuit

​A worker who began showing signs of depression and eventually quit and sought treatment should have been offered Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) time off, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

From May 2010 through June 2016, the plaintiff worked for the Township High School District as an assistant to the associate principal for instruction at Elk Grove High School. During that time, the plaintiff received excellent performance evaluations. Her supervisors described her as extremely dependable and an invaluable resource. The plaintiff was never disciplined and rarely took sick days.

After learning about a new opening within the district, the plaintiff was promoted to the post of assistant to the principal at Wheeling High School in mid‐June 2016.

Shortly after she started at Wheeling, the plaintiff had trouble sleeping, eating and getting out of bed, and lacked energy. In July, her symptoms worsened: She experienced insomnia, weight loss, uncontrollable crying, racing thoughts, an inability to concentrate and exhaustion. The plaintiff began going into work late because she could not drag herself out of bed, and she started leaving work early because she could not control her crying. She applied for other jobs, thinking a different position might help her.

The plaintiff met with the principal and described her symptoms. She mentioned that she had received an offer for a different job but that she would probably remain at Wheeling. About two days later, the plaintiff spoke to the principal again. She described her symptoms and asked the principal to give her a 10‐month position, instead of her 12‐month job, because she thought that time away from the workplace might help.

The principal declined the request, prompting the plaintiff to say that she might accept the other job offer. Thereafter, the plaintiff had several conversations with the principal, often ending in tears. In early August, the plaintiff told the principal that she might leave "for medical reasons" and again asked for a 10‐month job.

Feeling pressure from the principal to decide whether to stay or leave, the plaintiff resigned on Aug. 4, 2016, to take effect a week later, on Aug. 11, 2016. On Aug. 9, 2016, the plaintiff showed up at the principal's home early in the morning, crying and asking to rescind her resignation. The principal, frustrated that the plaintiff had awakened her children, sent the plaintiff to work and denied her request to rescind. The plaintiff's employment with the district therefore ended on Aug. 11, 2016. That same day, the plaintiff scheduled an appointment with her doctor.

The next day, the plaintiff began her new job, but she was able to work for only four days before quitting. On Aug. 21, 2016, the plaintiff went to the emergency room. She returned to the hospital on Aug. 23, 2016. That time, she was admitted for four days and given medication for anxiety and severe major depressive disorder. Thereafter, the plaintiff visited a psychiatrist who diagnosed her with major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.

The plaintiff sued the district under the FMLA, claiming that it interfered with her rights under the act by failing to provide her with notice or information about her right to take job‐protected leave. After a trial, a jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff's favor and awarded her $12,000 in damages. The district then moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court denied that motion.

[SHRM members-only toolkit: Managing Family and Medical Leave (FMLA)]

On appeal, the district argued that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the plaintiff had a serious health condition during her employment. It also argued that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient notice that she was requesting FMLA leave.

The 7th Circuit rejected the district's argument that the evidence did not support the existence of a serious health condition. While the diagnoses occurred after the end of the plaintiff's employment, evidence showed that the plaintiff suffered depression before she quit.

Regarding notice, the court mentioned that the FMLA regulations changed in 2009 and might support the district's argument. However, the district had not referenced the new regulation, and the 7th Circuit determined that the plaintiff gave sufficient information to satisfy her relatively light burden to provide notice.

Thus, the appeals court upheld the jury's verdict.

Valdivia v. Township High School District 214, 7th Cir., No. 19-1410 (Nov. 12, 2019).

Professional Pointer: If an employer knows that an eligible employee has a serious health condition and would benefit from FMLA leave, the employer should notify the employee of the ability to take FMLA leave even if the employee does not specifically request it.

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with Doumar Martin in Arlington, Va.