Trial News

A school secretary who had reported her deteriorating mental health to her supervisor several times and requested an accommodation of a 10-month position need not have specifically mentioned the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to be protected under that statute, the Seventh Circuit held. The court let stand a jury verdict in favor of the employee, finding that under the FMLA, “adequacy of notice is a ‘fact-rich question’” and is therefore best left to a jury to evaluate. (Valdivia v. Twp. High Sch. Dist. 214, 2019 WL 5884449 (7th Cir. Nov. 12, 2019).)

Noemi Valdivia was a school secretary for Township High School District 214 from 2010 to 2016, first at Elk Grove High School and then at Wheeling High School. After her transfer to Wheeling High School in June 2016, Valdivia became “extremely distraught” and began to “cry uncontrollably” at work. She told her supervisor that she was overwhelmed, afraid, and having trouble sleeping and eating. She requested to be placed in a 10-month position, rather than her full-year position. Valdivia resigned in August 2016 and began a new job. Less than two weeks later, she was hospitalized for four days and diagnosed with depression, anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and insomnia.  

Valdivia sued District 214, alleging, among other claims, that the defendant interfered with her right to take job-protected leave under the FMLA. She claims it was “objectively clear that she was suffering from anxiety and emotional distress resulting from one or more psychological conditions” and that she should have been offered FMLA leave for her serious health condition that made her “unable to perform the functions of the position.” The district court agreed, denying District 214’s motion for summary judgment. At trial, a jury found in Valdivia’s favor, awarding her $12,000 in damages.

After the jury verdict, District 214 moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that no reasonable juror could find that Valdivia was entitled to FMLA leave or had provided adequate notice to the defendant of her need for leave. The district court denied the defendant’s motion, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

The Seventh Circuit applied a two-factor test to determine Valdivia’s entitlement to FMLA leave: whether she was “afflicted with a ‘serious health condition’” and whether that condition made her “unable to perform the essential functions of her position.” (Guzman v. Brown Cnty., 884 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2018).) Here, the court said, the evidence of Valdivia’s symptoms and four-day hospitalization was sufficient to support the jury’s findings. The appellate court noted that although the plaintiff had not been diagnosed with a serious health condition during her employment, her testimony and medical records support a finding that she had exhibited symptoms of her health condition during her employment.

The Seventh Circuit also agreed with the lower court that District 214 had been given adequate notice of Valdivia’s need for FMLA leave. Valdivia had reported her declining mental health to her supervisor several times and requested the accommodation of a 10-month position. The appellate court found that constructive notice of the need for FMLA leave was sufficient according to its 2003 decision in Bryne v. Avon Prods., Inc. (328 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2003), but noted that since that time, the relevant FMLA regulation, 29 C.F.R. §825.303(a), had been amended. Whereas in 2003, the regulation had called for employees to provide notice within one or two working days “except in extraordinary circumstances,” in 2009, the regulation was revised to require notice “as soon as practicable,” and “generally” within the timeframe prescribed by the employer.

Regardless, said Chief Judge Wood, writing for the Seventh Circuit, Valdivia’s conversations with her supervisor about her mental state and her requests for a 10-month work assignment “take her case out of the pure constructive-notice model.” The court concluded that the adequacy of the plaintiff’s notice is a “fact-rich question” and was appropriately resolved in this case by the jury.

Chicago attorney Alejandro Caffarelli, who represented the plaintiff, said he was “very pleased that the Seventh Circuit upheld the viability of constructive notice under the FMLA,” adding that “Judge Wood’s analysis was spot on.”