Denise Kemp, a senior manager at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, worked remotely in June 2016 to care for her seriously ill daughter. Regeneron responded by limiting her remote work to one day per week and encouraging her to use intermittent Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave for additional time away. Although Regeneron eventually approved Kemp's request for intermittent FMLA leave, Kemp sued, alleging that the company's restrictions and discouragement interfered with her FMLA rights. She also brought claims under the New York State Human Rights Law for discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge. The District Court granted summary judgment for Regeneron, ruling that Kemp's FMLA claim failed because the company never denied her benefits and that her state law claims lacked evidence. Kemp appealed, challenging both the legal standard for interference and the procedural dismissals.
The Second Circuit addressed two primary issues. First, regarding the FMLA, the court held that the statute's plain text makes it unlawful for an employer to 'interfere with, restrain, or deny' rights. The court clarified that an employer can violate the law merely by interfering with an employee's use of benefits, such as by discouraging leave or restricting remote work, even if the employer ultimately grants the leave. This rejected the District Court's requirement that a plaintiff must prove an actual denial of benefits. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Kemp's FMLA claim because she failed to provide admissible evidence that Regeneron acted 'willfully.' Under the FMLA, the statute of limitations extends to three years only for willful violations; otherwise, it is two years. The court found no evidence that Regeneron knowingly or recklessly disregarded its obligations, noting that the company appeared to try to comply with the law. Second, regarding the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the court affirmed the dismissal of the discrimination and retaliation claims as time-barred. The statute of limitations began when Regeneron made its position apparent to Kemp in July and October 2016, well before she filed suit in November 2019. The court rejected the argument that the 'continuing wrong' doctrine applied, as the alleged discriminatory acts were discrete. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the constructive discharge claim, ruling that Kemp's reassignment to a position with fewer responsibilities but the same salary did not create working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would be compelled to resign.
This decision establishes that employers cannot shield themselves from FMLA liability simply by granting leave after discouraging it; interference alone is sufficient for a violation. However, plaintiffs must still prove willfulness to extend the statute of limitations. The ruling also reinforces strict timelines for filing state law claims, clarifying that the clock starts when an employee receives definite notice of an adverse action, not when the final details are finalized. The case is remanded with instructions to affirm the lower court's dismissal, leaving Kemp without a remedy on the merits.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download