A recent case in the Third Circuit (including New Jersey) has addressed individual liability of supervisors of public agencies. In Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole, 667 F.3d 408 (3d. Cir. 2012), the plaintiff, Debra Haybarger, worked as an office manager for the Lawrence County Probation and Parole Agency. Haybarger alleged that her protected absences from work under the FMLA were held against her and lead to her termination.
Haybarger had Type II diabetes, heart disease, and kidney problems, which led to frequent medical appointments and some lost time from work. She claimed that her supervisor, Mancino, wrote in his annual performance evaluations that she needed “to improve her overall health and cut down on the days she misses due to illness.” She also claimed he asked her why she breathed heavily and needed to see a doctor so often.
On March 23, 2004, Mancino placed Haybarger on a six-month probationary period which required weekly progress assessments. He advised Haybarger, who had been with the Agency since 1988, that she demonstrated a “lack of leadership,” and “no clear understanding of the subordinate positions.” Mancino consulted with his supervisor before sending out the discipline letter.
About six months later, Mancino informed his supervisor and Judge Motto that Haybarger’s job performance had not improved. Mancino said he did not have authority to terminate Haybarger but he advised Judge Motto to dismiss her. Mancino, his supervisor, and Judge Motto met with Haybarger on October 4, 2004, and advised her of her termination.
Among her various claims, Haybarger alleged that Mancino should be personally liable to her under the FMLA. The District Court held that Mancino did not have sufficient control to fire plaintiff and was therefore not an employer. It granted summary judgment to Mancino and dismissed plaintiff’s case against him. The Third Circuit disagreed. First, it said, “. . . we discern no reason to distinguish between public agencies and private employers under the FMLA insofar as individual liability is concerned.”
The Court went on to note that the Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Courts do not permit individual liability against supervisors at public agencies. However, other Circuits do allow individual liability, and the Third Circuit agreed with the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit. “Finally, we agree with the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning that the FMLA’s similarity to the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) indicates that Congress intended for courts to treat the FMLA the same as the FLSA, rather than treating only specific provisions alike. . . . Because the FLSA explicitly provides that an employer includes ‘any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee and includes a public agency’ we agree that the FMLA similarly permits individual liability against supervisors at public agencies.”
The next issue the Court considered was whether Mancino had sufficient authority over plaintiff to be considered her supervisor. The Court said that Mancino admitted that he advised Judge Motto to terminate Haybarger and was present at the termination meeting. He also wrote the termination letter. Further, the Court said that Mancino exercised significant control over the conditions of her employment because he monitored her work and performed annual reviews as well as disciplining her. Therefore, the Court held that Mancino was her supervisor for purposes of individual liability under the FMLA. The Court vacated the summary judgment order and allowed Haybarger to proceed with her case.
This case underscores the critical need for training of supervisors on FMLA issues in both public and private employers. It is certainly not widely known among supervisors that there is potential for individual liability under the FMLA. Better education on the FMLA promotes FMLA compliance and protects supervisors and employers from potentially significant law suits.
