Human Resources News & Insights

Court confirms it: Honest mistake doesn’t mean doom in FMLA suit

If you fire a staffer for allegedly abusing leave and then turn out to be wrong, you can still win in court — if you meet this one requirement.

Tom Seeger, a network technician who worked for the same firm for nearly 30 years, suffered from a herniated lumbar disc and was approved for FMLA leave.

His doctor stated that he could do “no work,” including light duty. That meant, under his company’s policies, that he could receive paid disability leave while out on FMLA.

Four days later, two co-workers ran into a “seemingly unimpaired” Seeger with his wife at Oktoberfest in downtown Cincinnati. One of those colleagues, knowing Seeger was on paid disability leave, alerted HR.

Seeger admitted after the fact to walking 10 blocks and drinking one or two beers at the event.

The company conducted an investigation, including:

  • taking sworn statements from the two employees who saw Seeger at Oktoberfest
  • reviewing Seeger’s medical records, disability file and employment history
  • consulting with the company’s registered nurse and manager of its medical department, and
  • asking Seeger and his doctor to submit info relevant to why he was at Oktoberfest.

After reviewing the info, the company suspended Seeger and ultimately fired him for “disability fraud,” stating that he had “over-reported” his symptoms to avoid the part-time light-duty work that the company’s paid-leave policy called for.

Seeger sued, claiming retaliation for taking FMLA leave. He said that his doctor instructed him to take short walks and that he was most comfortable walking or standing — and that the company should be held liable for firing him for doing what his doctor prescribed.

But the court wasn’t having it.

The question, the court said, was not if Seeger actually committed fraud, but if the company “reasonably and honestly” believed that he did.

Based on the thoroughness of its investigation, the court said the company met was protected under the “honest belief rule”:

As long as an employer has an honest belief in its proffered nondiscriminatory reason for discharging an employee, the employee cannot establish that the reason was pretextual simply because it is ultimately shown to be incorrect. An employer has an honest belief in its reason for discharging an employee where the employer reasonably relied on the particularized facts that were before it at the time the decision was made.

Parsing out the ‘honest belief rule’

Know this: The “honest belief rule” will not protect you in every discrimination case.

This company won because it could prove that it believed a worker was abusing leave. Courts will hold firms to a similar high standard if they want to invoke the “honest belief rule.”

So what’s that look like? You’ll likely need two things:

  • detailed, thorough documentation, and
  • evidence.

Without those two things, it’s unlikely you’ll be able to claim you fired someone for the right reasons.

But if you have them, and you take an adverse employment action that turns out to be wrong, there’s a good chance you’ll be protected.

Cite: Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. To read the full decision, go here.

Subscribe Today

Get the latest and greatest Human Resources news and insights delivered to your inbox.
  • MMAN

    O.K. So here the court ruled in favor of the company and I have no issues with that. However, to make things right again, I feel the company should have reinstated the employee after having learned that it was a mistake that they fired him. Because after all, it was found that the employee was not in fact abusing FMLA. Without reinstatement at the very least , I feel the company got an out on this one. I mean come on, the guy had nearly 30 years in with the company and was probably getting ready to retire. Does anyone else agree?

  • JP Prichard

    Two separate issues:

    1) Denying legitimate FMLA leave (NOT litigated)
    2) Retaliation for taking FMLA (Litigated; Found in favor of employer for lack of pretext)

    Sounds like he has another case he needs to pursue.

  • MMAN

    By Jove I think you are right JP Prichard. Since he already lost on #2 could he then take the company back to court on #1. Looks like his attorney would/should have pursued #1 and should have known as much.

  • Kevin

    Why didn’t Seeger’s doctor mention the requirement to take short walks in his/her relevant statement? Sounds like the doctor screwed-up. In light of the erroneous input from the doctor (assuming Seeger was being truthful), it sounds like the company did all it could to properly evaluate this situation.

    “asking Seeger and his doctor to submit info relevant to why he was at Oktoberfest.”

  • Michele

    Seeger wasn’t reinstated because he accepted a retirement package and 6 months back pay. It’s in the court document. He was fairly treated. The company only benefited because they weren’t required to pay a wrongful termination lawsuit.

  • MMAN

    @Michele…it would have been nice if this information was included in the article and definitely should have been. So with what you have said, it clears things up a bit. Thanks!

  • Michele

    @MMAN… I agree. Apparently the union went to arbitration and that’s what he received.