FMLA claim goes forward

A federal judge will allow a jury to resolve competing claims in a Family Medical Leave Act case that goes to trial this week. The judge’s decision cleared the way for a two-day trial beginning July 6 in Roanoke federal court.

The case could turn on whether the employee – a human resources director – quit before asking for time off for medical treatment. She claims she did not quit, but alleges she was fired in a series of texts and emails from her supervisor as she sought medical leave.

U.S. District Judge Glen E. Conrad denied the company’s motion for summary judgment June 22 in LaMonaca v. Tread Corp. (VLW 015-3-296).

Valerie LaMonaca’s job and personal life had her under a great deal of stress in April of last year, according to her allegations as summarized by Conrad.

Her husband had lost his job while recuperating from heart surgery, making LaMonaca the sole source of income and insurance coverage. At work, LaMonaca’s relationship with CEO Barry Russell was growing more strained, according to her allegations.

One source of tension was a separate lawsuit arising from a contract dispute between the employer, Tread Corp., and two former company executives, Conrad said.

The conflict came to a head on a Friday during a meeting between LaMonaca and Russell. Tread maintained LaMonaca resigned during that meeting. LaMonaca said she advised only that she was considering resigning. She claimed Russell then told her to take time to think about the decision.

About 20 minutes later, Russell suggested LaMonaca leave early. She was observed in tears as she left.

The digital messages began soon thereafter.

Russell sent LaMonaca two text messages that evening asking if she planned to submit a written resignation. She did not immediately respond.

Saturday morning, LaMonaca scheduled an appointment with her doctor. She then sent her assistant an email saying she was suffering from “psychological distress” and had a doctor’s appointment Monday afternoon.

LaMonaca asked for the assistant to send FMLA medical leave forms.

On Sunday afternoon, Russell again sent text messages to LaMonaca.

He said her failure to respond to his Friday text questions signaled her decision to resign immediately.

“If this is incorrect, please respond immediately. Otherwise, I will assume the resignation you verbally tendered on Friday is effective immediately and I will arrange on Monday to discontinue your pay and benefits,” Russell wrote.

LaMonaca responded, “Barry, I do not think that this is an appropriate medium to have this conversation. I was preparing to discuss with you on Monday. However, since you demand my immediate response, I do not plan to tender my resignation. I will send a longer explanation in email.”

In her email that Sunday afternoon, LaMonaca repeated that she had decided not to resign. She requested a medical leave of absence and advised about the scheduled doctor’s appointment.

She told Russell she had become “increasingly emotionally distressed at work.” She said she was seeking medical treatment for high levels of stress.

Russell responded by email to tell LaMonaca to stay off of company property until further notice.

The company never sent the FMLA forms.

LaMonaca kept her doctor’s appointment on Monday. The doctor testified she was tearful, shaky and unusually agitated during the examination. The doctor concluded LaMonaca’s anxiety would make her unable to perform her job and recommended a 30-day medical leave of absence.

LaMonaca contended she was terminated by email later that day. Russell said her employment had ended the previous Friday.

LaMonaca claimed the company violated the FMLA by terminating her instead of allowing medical leave. She also claimed the termination was retaliation for requesting FMLA leave.

Tread – the employer – took the position that LaMonaca voluntarily resigned her job in the Friday meeting and was no longer employed when she requested medical leave.

Conrad ruled the case was one for a jury.

“[T]he court remains convinced that whether LaMonaca resigned during the meeting with Russell … is a question of fact that must be resolved by a jury,” the judge wrote.

Conrad also decided LaMonaca had presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact about whether she provided sufficient notice of her FMLA request and whether she suffered from a serious health condition.

The retaliation claim also survived.

“[T]he court is of the opinion that LaMonaca has proffered sufficient evidence to establish that she engaged in protected activity by requesting FMLA leave; that Tread subsequently terminated her employment; and that there was a causal connection between the leave request and the adverse employment action,” Conrad wrote.

LaMonaca is represented by Paul Beers of Roanoke, while Steven D. Brown of Richmond represents Tread. Both declined comment because of the approaching trial date.

Update: A jury returned a verdict July 7 in favor of LaMonaca on both the interference and retaliation claims. The parties reached agreement as to an award of back pay and agreed to submit the issues of bad faith and attorneys fees to the judge.