by Gail Cohen, Esq. - Assistant General Counsel
& Marti Cardi, Esq. - Senior Compliance Consultant and Legal Counsel,
June 02, 2021
Sarah Simon held the position of “alternative program lead teacher” for Cooperative Education (“CESA”) at REACH Academy, a school for elementary students with emotional and/or behavioral disabilities. Her duties included far more than teaching curriculum to the students in her classroom. They also involved management of paraprofessionals working under her supervision, and developing and implementing integrated education plans (“IEPs”) for her students.
Ms. Simon suffered a concussion from a physical altercation with one of her students. She left work to go to the Emergency Room and informed HR about her need for time off as a result. She was placed on worker’s compensation leave and cleared to return to full time duty after about a month. While she was on leave, her employer concluded restoring and returning her to her prior job constituted an “unreasonable risk.” She was instead placed in a position as a special education teacher at a different school, but at her same salary and benefits – until being informed that her contract would not be renewed. Simon sued, alleging CESA had failed to reinstate her to an equivalent position.
The case went to trial on that question. You know the employer is going to lose when early in the opinion the court observes that the employer “not only refused to return her to her previous position, but instead parked her in a backwater position with materially fewer responsibilities … Simon deserved better and the law demanded better.” Yikes.
The FMLA provides that, upon return from leave, an employee is entitled to be restored to the position she held prior to leave, or to an equivalent position which is “virtually identical to the employee’s former position,” with equivalent employment benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment. The test for equivalency is strict: the new position must involve “the same or substantially similar duties and responsibilities, which must entail substantially equivalent skill, effort, responsibility, and authority.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.215(a).
This employer thought that as long as Ms. Simon was earning the same salary, that was enough to be equivalent; but the regulations bear out that jobs are about more than just pay. In Ms. Simon’s case, the move to the special education role eliminated management responsibilities she had for the paraprofessionals with whom she worked, along with many significant duties in which she clearly took great pride and for which she was vested with authority and discretion. In Simon the court held that a new position with less prestige and visibility, or a loss of management responsibilities – even at the same pay – is not an equivalent position.
Pings for Employers:
- “Unreasonable risk?” It is truly cringe-worthy to hear an employer make the assumption that an employee who was injured at work constituted an “unreasonable risk.” The court opinion never explains what CESA perceived this risk to be, or why reinstatement to a different position lessened that supposed risk. This consideration is irrelevant in the FMLA world, however, because the FMLA does not allow an employer to deny job restoration because of a fear of risk.
- Same position is your best bet. When an employee is returning from leave, your best bet is to restore her to the same job she held prior to taking FMLA. If that is not available for legitimate business reasons or otherwise, look for one that is truly equivalent and comparable, not only in terms of pay and benefits but the other practical, meaningful aspects of work that employers should never forget. When an employee is “reinstated” following FMLA leave to a position that is less prestigious or has less responsibility, you are at risk for a lawsuit.
- An ADA lesson on the side. It appears that Ms. Simon recovered quickly enough that her condition did not rise to the level of an ADA-protected disability. However, let’s consider some ADA rules that otherwise would have applied: Under the ADA, the employer’s obligation is to restore an employee to the SAME position following leave as an accommodation. An employer’s failure to reinstate the employee to the same position is justified only if it would pose an undue hardship on the business – a tough standard to meet. We touched on that topic in a prior blog post.
- And a BONUS ADA lesson! Finally, the ADA does not permit an employer to refuse to reinstate an employee after accommodation leave due to a fear of “increased risk” unless the employee poses a direct threat to herself or others. The EEOC addressed this issue in the workers’ compensation context in its Enforcement Guidance on WC and the ADA at Question 14. Suffice it to say that, if you are going to consider an employee a risk after she is injured in your workplace, you had better have some objective support, medical or otherwise, to back up that position!
Matrix Can Help!
Matrix offers integrated FMLA/leave of absence, ADA, and integrated disability management services.[MC1] For more information about our solutions, please contact your Matrix or Reliance Standard account manager, or reach us at ping@matrixcos.com.