Russell Delp v. Hexcel Corporation

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied Hexcel Corporation’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Russell Delp’s Second Amended Complaint. The court held that Delp plausibly alleged FMLA interference based on alleged failures to restore him to his position, improper handling of certification and recertification, and termination following approved intermittent FMLA leave. The court also allowed the forced- or involuntary-leave theory to proceed at this stage because the allegations were tied to specific alleged violations of the FMLA and its implementing regulations.

Holdings

1. The Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged an FMLA interference claim because it did not rely solely on a standalone forced-leave theory; it also alleged specific violations of the FMLA and its implementing regulations, including denial of restoration, improper recertification requirements, and denial of approved intermittent leave.
2. Delp plausibly alleged that Hexcel interfered with his FMLA rights by failing to restore him to his former or an equivalent position with equivalent pay and working conditions after his approved intermittent leave on April 7, 2023.
3. Delp plausibly alleged that Hexcel interfered with his FMLA rights by imposing more onerous medical recertification requirements than permitted by the FMLA and its implementing regulations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged FMLA interference notwithstanding that it included a forced or involuntary-leave theory that the court had previously rejected.
2. Whether the alleged failure to restore Delp to his former or an equivalent position after approved intermittent FMLA leave stated a claim for FMLA interference.
3. Whether the alleged imposition of improper or more onerous medical recertification requirements plausibly constituted interference with rights protected by the FMLA and its implementing regulations.

Disposition

other