Whiting v. The Johns Hopkins Hosp.
| Citation | 680 F.Supp.2d 750 |
| Decision Date | 06 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. WDQ-09-1619. |
| Parties | Joann WHITING, Plaintiff, v. The JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL and The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Thomas B. Corbin, Thomas B. Corbin PA, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiff.
Jay R. Fries, Kathleen A. Talty, Kruchko and Fries, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants.
Joann Whiting sued The Johns Hopkins Hospital and The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation (together "Hopkins") for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. Pending is Hopkins's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment will be granted.
From January 1998 to August 2007 Whiting worked for Hopkins as a Patient Financial Services Representative. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 1 (Laurice D. Royal Aff. ¶ 3, Sept. 23, 2009). From June 2007 to August 2007, Whiting took medical leave under the FMLA. Id. In approving her request for leave, Hopkins stated that Whiting's balance of FMLA leave would be exhausted on August 8, 2007, and that any additional time off would require a leave of absence for short term disability. PL's Opp., Ex. 8. On August 9, 2007, Whiting was approved for a leave of absence for short term disability through September 10, 2007. Compl. ¶ 19; Royal Aff., Ex. 1. On August 25, 2007, Hopkins terminated Whiting, explaining that it could not hold her position during her absence, and she had been replaced. Compl. ¶22; Royal Aff. ¶ 3, Ex. 1.
On September 6, 2007, Whiting filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), alleging that she had been discharged in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Royal Aff., Ex. 1.1 The charge alleged that she had been on FMLA leave because of a disability, and the disability had led to her discharge. Id. The parties participated in EEOC-monitored mediation and, on December 21, 2007, reached two settlement agreements, the Mediation Settlement Agreement ("MSA") and the Release and Settlement Agreement ("RSA"). Royal Aff. ¶ 5; Exs. 2, 3. Although the MSA was approved by the EEOC, the RSA was not. Compare Royal Aff. Ex. 2, with Royal Aff. Ex. 3.
Under the MSA, Whiting agreed "not to institute a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,... the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,... the Equal Pay Act of 1963... and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990[.]" Royal Aff., Ex. 2. The MSA also stated that "[the parties] acknowledge that they have entered into a separate supplemental agreement," namely the RSA. Id.
Id., Ex. 3. Whiting also agreed that she would "neither file nor cause or permit to be filed on her behalf and... waives her right to recover... upon filing, any lawsuits, claims, grievances, complaints or charges in any forum, or any dispute arising out of her employment relationship with [Johns Hopkins] through December 20, 2007. Id. Whiting received a one-time cash payment and career counseling from Hopkins in exchange for these promises. Id., Ex. 2.
On June 18, 2009, Whiting sued Hopkins for violating the FMLA. Paper No. 1. On September 24, 2009, Hopkins moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. Paper No. 7.
Under Rule 56(c), summary judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file and any affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In considering a motion for summary judgment, "the judge's function is not... to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
The Court must "view the evidence in the light most favorable to... the nonmovant, and draw all reasonable inferences in her favor," Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 645 (4th Cir.2002), but the Court also "must abide by the affirmative obligation of the trial judge to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to trial," Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 526 (4th Cir.2003).
B. Hopkins's Motion
Hopkins argues that Whiting's FMLA suit is barred by the settlement agreements, which released Johns Hopkins Health Systems Corporation and its corporate affiliates (including Johns Hopkins Hospital) "from any and all causes of action, known or unknown, arising out of or in any way relating to [Whiting's] employment." Royal Aff., Ex. 3. Hopkins cites a Department of Labor ("DOL") regulation interpreting the FMLA, that although "employees cannot waive... their prospective rights under FMLA," this prohibition "does not prevent the settlement or release of FMLA claims by employees based on past employer conduct without the approval of the [DOL] or a court." 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(d) (2009).
Whiting counters that section 220(d) does not apply because it was promulgated on January 16, 2009, more than a year after the settlement agreements were signed. She argues that applying section 220(d) would violate the strong presumption against retroactive application of statutes and administrative regulations. See generally Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988).
Section 220(d) is a revision of a 1995 DOL regulation that "[e]mployees cannot waive, nor may employers induce employees to waive, their rights under FMLA." 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(d) (2007); Taylor v Progress Energy, Inc., 493 F.3d 454, 456 (4th Cir.2007). Whiting argues that under the previous rule, employees could not waive their rights under the FMLA either prospectively or retrospectively. She relies principally on Taylor v. Progress Energy, Inc., which held that this reading was compelled by the "plain language of [the 1995 version of] section 220(d)." 493 F.3d at 456.2 Under the 1995 version of the rule, Whiting contends—and Hopkins does not dispute—that her suit may proceed.
Whiting does not dispute Hopkins's contention that the current version of section 220(d) permits the settlement of past FMLA claims. She does, however, argue that enforcement of the current version should be enjoined because it is "manifest- ly contrary" to the FMLA.3
"Retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S. at 208, 109 S.Ct. 468. Generally, "congressional enactments and administrative rules will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result." Id. However, when a statute or rule does not change the law but merely clarifies existing law, corrects a misinterpretation by a court, or overrules a wrongly decided case, the statute or rule should apply to the case at bar. Brown v. Thompson, 374 F.3d 253, 259 (4th Cir.2004).4 In determining whether a revision of a rule changes or merely clarifies existing law, the Court "looks to statements of intent made by [the enacting body]." Id. (citing Piamba Cortes v. American Airlines, Inc., 177 F.3d 1272, 1284 (11th Cir.1999)).
In the preamble to the current version of section 220(d), the DOL stated that this version has "proposed to clarify that the waiver provision in paragraph (d)... applies only to prospective FMLA rights." 73 Fed.Reg. 67987 (Nov. 17, 2008). Because "courts had disagreed"5 about whether the previous version of section 220(d) "prohibits only the prospective waiver of FMLA rights, or also prohibits the retrospective settlement or release of FMLA claims based on past employer conduct," the DOL clarified the rule. Id.
The DOL cited Taylor and stated that "the Department disagreed with the Fourth Circuit's interpretation of the regulation" and that "[t]herefore, in the interest of clarity, the Department proposed to make explicit in [section 220](d)... that employees and employers are permitted to agree voluntarily to the settlement of past claims." Id. The DOL also stated that it had "always intended for the waiver prohibition to apply only to prospective FMLA rights" and that by changing the rule's language, the DOL sought only to rectify "the perceived ambiguity" that had led to conflict among the circuits. Id.
Further, the DOL sought to clarify that Id. at 67988 (emphasis added).
These statements establish that the current version of section 220(d) is not a change in the law but a clarification of what the law has been since the original version of the section was promulgated in 1995. Section 220(d) thus permitted Whit- ing to settle all past claims arising out of her employment with Hopkins, including her FMLA claims.
Whiting argues that section 220(d) is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Acevedo v. The City Of Philadelphia
-
Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC
...plaintiffs argue that the rule should be applied retroactively because it is a “clarifying” regulation. See Whiting v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 680 F.Supp.2d 750, 754 (D.Md.2010) (applying an FMLA regulation retroactivelybecause it “merely clarifies existing law”). Defendants disagree. The new ......
-
Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
...v. ABB, Inc., 521 F.3d 1010, 1014 (8th Cir.2008) (“FLSA rights are statutory and cannot be waived”); see also Whiting v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, 680 F.Supp.2d 750, 753 (D.Md.2010)aff'd Whiting v. The Johns Hopkins Hosp., 416 Fed.Appx. 312 (4th Cir.2011) (same); Walton v. United Consumers Cl......
-
Shaw v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 1:18-CV-00049
...; 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(d) (permitting waiver and release of FMLA claims based on past employer conduct); Whiting v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 680 F.Supp.2d 750, 754–56 (D. Md. 2010) (holding that an employee can waive her right to bring an FMLA claim based on conduct which predates the signing of......