To contact us Click HERE Yesterday, in the case of Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals determined, for the first time in this Circuit, that supervisors who work at public agencies can be held personally liable for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
The facts of this case and the analysis employed by the Court in reaching its decision are not overly exciting. In short, Debra Haybarger worked as an office manager for Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole, and suffered from Type II diabetes, heart disease and kidney problems. Her health problems forced her to miss work often for medical appointments, and the Director of the Adult Probation and Parole, William Mancino, expressed dissatisfaction with Haybarger's frequent illness-related absences. Mancino informed Haybarger that she needed to "cut down" on the days she was taking off and began to ask her why she needed to visit the doctor so much. Haybarger was then formally disciplined by Mancino for her frequent medical absences and eventually terminated by the Adult Probation Office on Marcino's recommendation. Haybarger then sued Lawrence County, Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole and Marcino for various employment law violations, including the FMLA.
After a complex procedural history, which saw many of Haybarger's claims dismissed, Marcino sought to have Haybarger's FMLA claims against him dismissed as well, arguing that the statutory language of the FMLA did not allow for personal liability. After engaging in a thorough (and none-too-thrilling) parsing of the operative statutory language that defines who is an "employer" under the FMLA, the Third Circuit concluded that this definition includes an individual employed by a public agency who (1) exercises supervisory authority over a complaining employee and (2) was responsible, either in whole or in part, for the alleged FMLA violation. The Third Circuit then examined the specific facts in this case and concluded that enough evidence existed to allow a jury to conclude that Marcino fit this definition as it related to Haybarger.
What really makes this case interesting and important (aside from the fact that this issue had never been decided by the Third Circuit before), is that it widens a Circuit-split that previously existed on this question. In its decision, the Haybarger Court noted that the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits had already arrived at the opposite conclusion - that the FMLA does not permit individual liability for supervisors at public agencies. Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit has similarly held that there is no individual liability for public officials under the FMLA because "an individual officer lacks sufficient control over an employee's employment." The Haybarger Court, however, rejected these rationales and instead chose to follow the lead of the Fifth Circuit, which had previously concluded that individual liability under the FMLA can attach to supervisors at public agencies.
So, we now have at least three Circuits finding no grounds for individual public supervisor liability, and at least two that have taken the opposite tack. With that schism, it seems likely (if not inevitable) that the U.S. Supreme Court will now have to take up this question and determine it once and for all. As they say in show business, "stay tuned folks... there's more after this."
You can read the full Third Circuit opinion in Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/103916p.pdf