You Be the Judge: The Case of the Porch-building FMLA Claimant
In today’s edition of You Be the Judge, we have a real-life case out of Ohio for your consideration. We’ll give you the facts and then you decide who wins. Once the votes are in, we’ll tell you how the court actually ruled.
The Facts
James Weimer worked on the assembly line at Honda’s Marysville, Ohio plant. On February 21, 2006, a co-worker slammed a trunk lid on Weimer’s head. He was taken to the emergency room where he was diagnosed with a concussion and a strained muscle.
Weimer was then seen by doctors under contract to Honda. They ordered him to remain off work through March 15. Weimer requested FMLA leave and the company approved his request.
However, after receiving a tip that Weimer might not be as injured as he claimed, Honda obtained video of him doing house and yard work. The video showed Weimer adding a front porch to his home and lugging heavy materials around his yard while on leave.
When Weimer returned to work on March 16, the company questioned him. He admitted doing the house and yard during his leave. Honda fired him for dishonesty and FMLA abuse.
The Lawsuit
Weimer filed a lawsuit, claiming that the company fired him in retaliation for taking FMLA leave. Honda denied the claims. The parties conducted discovery and then each filed a motion for summary judgment in its favor.
Honda argued that it fired Weimer for lying and for abusing his leave. The centerpiece of its case was the video, which Honda said was proof that Weimer (1) failed to tell his doctors that he had recovered enough to return to work and (2) stayed on leave longer than he was eligible.
Weimer countered that he told the doctors that he didn’t feel injured enough to take the entire recommended leave. He argued that he was capable of returning to work earlier but was unable to do so because of the recommendations of Honda’s own doctors.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:10 am
I believe the Employee should win only because he was ordered to remain out of work until March 15.
They certainly could have added that Mr. Weimer will be re-examined on March 1 to determine if he was capable of returning to work.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I will be SHOCKED if the court sided with Honda. The only out for the company I see is if the doctors orders included some kind of clause that said if he was feeling better enough to do physical activity he had to report back for additional testing. I would like to think an employee would return to work — or at least ask to return — if he felt able to. That would be the honest course, in my opinion. But just because he didn’t do so before the date ordered by doctors, does not seem like grounds for firing. There must have been a reason the doctors wanted him to take that much time away.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Thanks for the comment, Colin. Great analysis — you’d make a fine lawyer! (Hope that’s perceived as a compliment.)