Eighth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of FMLA Case Involving Diabetic Episode

More than 10 percent of Americans have been diagnosed with diabetes. While the condition is manageable in most cases, there are situations where the severe effects of high blood sugar require urgent medical treatment and absence from work. When a person’s diabetes requires hospitalization or at least two doctor’s visits per year, that can qualify as a serious condition under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). However, some employees refuse to acknowledge the dangers faced by their diabetic workers and deny their legal rights under the FMLA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

In the case of Huber v. Westar Foods, Inc., an employee of a Nebraska Hardee’s restaurant, Tonya Huber, cited a pattern of conduct by which supervisors minimized the seriousness of her condition. This included remarks from her managers that the company was not responsible for providing a place in the restaurant where she could store her insulin at room temperature or a time when she could take a meal break during which she could inject her medicine. 

One morning in 2019, Huber woke up disoriented and experienced other symptoms associated with hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar. She went to her doctor’s office for treatment, where she remained for the rest of the day. Due to her condition, she was not able to call her manager, Cindy Kelchen, to notify Kelchen of her absence from work. Huber was still unable to work the next day, but did not wake up until a couple hours after her shift was supposed to begin. At that point, Huber called Kelchen and subsequently emailed a note from her doctor saying that she needed to remain home for several more days.

Right after speaking to Huber, Kelchen called the owner of Westar Foods, the company that operated the Hardee’s franchise where Huber worked. In their conversation, they agreed to fire Huber once she returned to work. The next day, Huber emailed requesting FMLA paperwork, but it was never provided. In her dismissal notification, Huber was told she did not qualify for FMLA because she was able to drive to her doctor’s office when she suffered the diabetic episode. When Huber sued alleging violations of the FMLA and ADA, as well as unlawful retaliation, the District Court dismissed her complaint, saying that Huber failed to show the termination was based on discrimination rather than the violation of company absence notification policy about which she had been previously warned.  

However, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, finding that a jury could reasonably conclude that Westar Foods interfered with Huber’s FMLA rights by denying her request for leave. The court held that the company policy stated that a manager must call in their absence at least two hours ahead of time when they are able to do so. Despite the fact that Huber was able to get to her doctor’s office, the panel wrote that it was a question of fact as to whether she was capable of calling Kelchen. 

The court also rejected Westar’s argument that Huber’s claim failed because the decision to terminate her was made prior to when they received the specific request for FMLA leave. An employee need not explicitly invoke the FMLA by name to put an employer on notice that leave may be necessary. Instead, the employer’s duty to provide FMLA leave is triggered when the employee provides enough information to put the employer on notice of a potential need for leave.

Kardell Law Group provides strong legal representation for employees whose FLMA rights have been violated, as well victims of disability discrimination and unlawful retaliation. If you believe your current or former employer has broken the law, we will advise whether the facts support legal relief.