In Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit1 ruled that a human resources director could be personally liable as an “employer” for violating an employee’s rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The plaintiff, a payroll administrator, requested FMLA leave to care for her 17-year-old son, who was hospitalized for previously undiagnosed Type I diabetes. After the plaintiff returned to work, she submitted a medical certification supporting her need for leave to care for her son. That same day, the plaintiff’s 12-year-old son fractured his leg and underwent surgery. The plaintiff requested additional leave and asked whether any further documentation was required. Despite emails and calls by the plaintiff to learn what documentation was required, and despite the plaintiff providing some information, the HR director declared that the plaintiff must come into work for a meeting. In what the court described as “an excruciating exchange,” the plaintiff and the HR director exchanged emails over several days but could not schedule a meeting. The plaintiff retained an attorney who wrote to the company’s president and spoke with the company’s attorney; however, one week later the plaintiff’s employment was terminated. The plaintiff sued the company and the HR director for interference and retaliation under the FMLA and discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on the basis of her association with a disabled individual. The trial court granted summary judgment on the claims and the plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court noted that the term “employer” is defined to include “any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer to any of the employees of such employer.”2 In determining that the HR director may be held personally liable under the FMLA, the court applied the economic reality test, which tracks the definition of “employer” found in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Under this test, the court analyzed “the totality of circumstances,” including such factors as whether the HR director “(1) had the power to hire and fire employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records.”