Supervisors Beware! Court Decision Broadens the Scope of Individual Liability Under FMLA
March 8, 2010
By Jeff Nowak
A recent federal trial court decision broadens the scope of individual
liability for supervisors in claims filed under the Family and Medical Leave
Act (FMLA). In Narodetsky v. Cardone Industries, Inc. (E.D. Penn.,
February 24, 2010), the court allowed a former employee’s FMLA claims to
proceed against three human resources executives and a supervisor who allegedly
conducted a forensic search of the plaintiff’s computer to find a reason that
would justify his termination and therefore obviate the need to grant his
requested leave of absence. The suit also named the company’s chief executive
officer as a defendant.
In Narodetsky, the plaintiff suffered a knee injury and required
surgery. Shortly thereafter, his wife contacted the employer to inform the
company that the Plaintiff would need time off for the anticipated operation.
He later sought a 10-day leave of absence to recuperate from the surgery.
Within a day of the initial request, the plaintiff alleges that the HR
executives and the plaintiff’s supervisor forensically combed through his
computer and found an email he sent to a co-worker that allegedly contained
pornographic images. Several weeks later, several of the defendants convened a
meeting with the plaintiff, at which time they showed him the email and
terminated his employment. He later filed suit against the company, alleging
that it interfered with his FMLA leave rights and retaliated against him for
requesting leave.
In denying the motion to dismiss the individual defendants from the case, the
Court held that all five of the individual defendants were properly named as
parties because each one had the power to fire and played a role in the
decision to terminate the plaintiff.
The lesson learned from Narodetsky decision is clear: Aside from the
obvious take away (read: don’t conduct a forensic search of an employee’s
computer immediately after he seeks a leave of absence!), it is critical that
employers establish a regular protocol for responding to requests for medical
leaves of absence that passes muster under laws such as the FMLA and ADA. This
case also highlights how vital it is for employers to train their supervisors
as to their responsibilities in managing an employee with a medical condition.
Indeed, the price tag in litigating this case will far outweigh the costs the
company would have incurred in training supervisors as to their obligations
under the FMLA.
For more information about the FMLA, please visit our FMLA website, www.FMLARegs.com. There, you can also listen and
subscribe to our monthly FMLA Insights Podcast, which offers practical advice
to employers on common (yet difficult) issues when administering FMLA leave.
More Information
- Jeffrey S. Nowak
jsn@franczek.com
312.786.6164 - William R. Pokorny
wrp@franczek.com
312.786.6141

