Federal Court Rules Temp-to-Hire Employee’s Hours Before and After Hire Must be Counted in Determining FMLA Eligibility

21 February 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Author(s): Jessica Glatzer Mason

The interplay between staffing agencies and client companies continues to be a common source of litigation, including an increase in cases under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”).   Following on the heels of a Fifth Circuit ruling clarifying the FMLA obligations allocated to each of the staffing agency and client company, an Oklahoma district court recently evaluated a similar case.  This court considered whether the hours a temp-to-hire employee worked at the client company before being directly hired from the staffing agency count towards the requirement that an eligible employee work 1,250 hours prior to FMLA leave.  In Miller v. The Nordam Group, Inc., the Northern District of Oklahoma concluded that those hours must be counted, and that the contractual agreement between the client company and staffing agency could not control this issue.   No. 12-CV-563 (N.D. Okla., Nov. 19, 2013).

The plaintiff, Sharon Miller, had worked as a temporary employee for Nordam for approximately ten months before being hired on directly as a Nordam employee.  A few months later, Miller requested FMLA leave, and was denied.  Miller took time away from work and was subsequently terminated.  She ultimately filed suit; Nordam contended that she was not eligible for FMLA leave because she did not work the required hours after she was hired as a Nordam employee, urging the court to discount the hours worked as a temporary employee.

The district court roundly rejected the interpretation advanced by Nordam, finding that the hours worked for Nordam both directly and through the staffing agency must be counted.  Noting this is a “typical staffing agency situation,” the client company and staffing agency are joint employers for this purpose.  Most interestingly, the court rejected Nordam’s attempt to rely on a contractual provision between it and the staffing agency stating that Miller was not an employee of Nordam.  The court clarified that “contractual language is generally not controlling as to the issue of joint employment” and relied upon the fact that Nordam set the work hours, supervised the day to day activities, and had the power to end the assignment to find that it was, in fact, a joint employer during Miller’s temporary employment.

The practical impact of this ruling on companies that utilize staffing agencies is that companies cannot rely on the staffing agency to insulate them fully from any potential liability.  Contractual provisions purporting to determine the employment relationship will not be honored if the circumstances relating to the employment suggest a joint employment relationship and, given that the client typically directs the daily activities of the work force and can cause a worker to be removed from an assignment, the circumstances necessary are frequently found to exist.  The joint employment relationship must be recognized and considered when making employment decisions.

If you have any questions or concerns about the joint employment relationship or obligations between client companies and staffing agencies, Jessica Glatzer Mason and the Gardere employment team are ready and able to assist you with all your needs.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services