Employee Survival Guide® - S6 Ep122: Kemp v. Regeneron Pharma- FMLA Interference Claim

Episode Date: April 16, 2025

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!The battlefield of workplace accommodations and family caregiving responsibilities takes center stage in our detailed examination of Kemp v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. This landmark case illuminates the critical distinction between denying leave and subtly discouraging employees from exercising their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act.We trace the journey of Denise Kemp, a decade-long employee with a history of promotions and positive performance, whose relationship with her employer deteriorated after seeking flexibility to care for her disabled daughter. The tension between remote work policies and leave rights creates a fascinating legal puzzle that ultimately hinged on technicalities rather than merits.The Second Circuit's ruling provides crucial clarity on what constitutes FMLA interference, establishing that employers can violate the law without ever formally denying leave requests. Yet despite this employee-friendly interpretation, procedural rules—particularly the unforgiving statute of limitations—proved decisive. We explore how timing can make or break employment claims regardless of their underlying validity.Beyond the technical legal analysis, we extract practical lessons for both sides of the employment relationship. For workers, understanding deadlines and documenting problematic interactions becomes paramount. For companies, the case serves as a warning that compliance means more than simply processing paperwork—it requires creating an environment where employees feel genuinely free to exercise their rights without subtle punishment.Have you encountered challenges balancing family care responsibilities with workplace expectations? The evolving legal landscape around remote work accommodations continues to shape both employee rights and employer obligations. Share your experiences or questions about navigating these complex waters. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Hey, it's Mark here and welcome to the next edition of the Employee Survival Guide where I tell you, as always, what your employer does definitely not want you to know about and a lot more. Okay, so you send over some really interesting documents for this deep dive. We've got court decisions, Second Circuit, Southern District of New York, and the original complaint and answer in the Denise Kemp versus Regeneron case. Yeah, quite a bit to dig into there. Definitely. And what we want to do today is really get to the heart of this legal fight.

Kemp versus her former employer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Focusing on those FMLA and New York State human rights law claims. Exactly. FMLA and NYSHRL. And the mission here isn't to get totally bogged down in legalese. It's more about pulling out the key arguments, how

the courts thought about it, and well, what it tells us about employee rights and company responsibilities. Absolutely. And having both the initial filings and the court decisions gives us that fuller picture, doesn't it? You see how the argument started and where they ended up. And how the federal and state laws sort of interact

or sometimes clash. Precisely. It's quite revealing. So let's start with Denise Kemp herself. Who was she at Regeneron? Sounds like she wasn't exactly new. No, not at all. She'd been there nearly a decade.

Started back in 2008, I think, as a senior GMP auditor. Wow. Okay. Almost 10 years. That's a solid tenure. It is. And the record shows she moved up, got promotions, ended up as a senior manager in quality assurance. Okay. And interestingly, her supervisor, Teresa Rivenberg, who becomes relevant later, actually recommended her for two of those promotions. Huh, so Rivenberg thought highly of her work, at least initially.

It certainly looks that way. Suggests good performance, good contributions. And it wasn't just titles, was it? The materials mentioned her salary pretty much doubled. Yeah, doubled and significant stock options too. So this paints a picture of someone who is, you know, doing well, being recognized, invested in the company. Exactly.

And that background matters. It tells you the problems that came up later probably weren't about long-standing performance issues or anything like that. She had a good track record. Okay, so that brings us to the core issue then. The remote work situation and caring for her daughter. This seems to be where things started to go sideways around June 2016. That's right.

She started working remotely more often because her daughter needed care developmental disabilities and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Serious conditions. And this wasn't the first time she needed leave or flexibility, was it? No, absolutely not. That's a crucial point. She'd taken FMLA leave before, for her own surgery actually, and also for her daughter previously. And Regeneron had approved those leaves. Yes, all approved. So there was a history, a precedent you could say, for accommodating her family care needs through leave.

But then things changed. That's when Rivenberg, her supervisor, and Rivenberg's own boss, started expressing concerns. Concerns about what exactly? Her time away. Yeah, about her time away from the physical office. Yeah. And they ended up limiting her remote work just one day a week. One day a week. Now, Kemp argued that remote work wasn't uncommon in her department, right? She did. The documents mentioned auditors on her team often worked from home. Even some non-managers apparently worked fully remotely.

So that raises the question, why the sudden restriction on her remote work, especially given her history and the apparent norm? Exactly. It makes you wonder what the specific reasoning was beyond just time in the office. And this restriction, this is what fes directly into her FMLA interference claim. Her argument was essentially, even though they were still approving her intermittent FMLA leave requests on paper, by limiting the remote work, which she needed to manage that leave and care, and by generally discouraging her time off, they were interfering with her

actual ability to use her FMLA rights. And that's a really key point the Second Circuit picked up on. They specifically said FMLA interference isn't just about denying leave requests outright. Actions that discourage an employee that make them feel like they can't take the leave they're entitled to, that can be interference too. So creating a chilling effect almost. Sort of, yeah. The law stops employers from hindering or restricting an employee's FMLA rights. So even with paper approvals, the practical situation could still violate the FMLA.

But despite the Second Circuit clarifying that point, which seems quite important, her FMLA claim didn't ultimately succeed. Why not? Statute of limitations. That was the killer for the FMLA claim. Ah, the timing issue again? Yep. Generally, it's a two-year window

to file an FMLA interference claim. OK. It can be extended to three years, but only if the violation was willful. And the court decided Regeneron's actions weren't willful. Correct. They basically said, look, while these actions might

have discouraged her or interfered, there wasn't enough proof that Regeneron knew they were violating the FMLA or acted with reckless disregard for her rights. So maybe they mishandled it, but didn't intentionally or recklessly break the law in the court's view. That seems to be the conclusion. And without willfulness, the standard two year limit applied. Which had passed by the time she filed the lawsuit.

Exactly. She filed too late for the FMLA claim, according to the court. And the court also drew a line between FMLA leave and remote work itself, didn't they? Yes, a very important distinction. They stress that the FMLA protects your right to take leave. It doesn't guarantee you the right to work remotely as part of that leave, even if remote work helps manage the situation. So remote work might be a reasonable accommodation under other laws, maybe, but not an FMLA leave right

per se. Precisely. That was central to their FMLA reasoning too. Okay, let's switch gears then. What about the state law claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, the NYSHRL? Right, so here she had a couple of claims. One was associational discrimination basically saying she was treated unfairly because of her daughter's disability. Discriminated against because of her association with a disabled person. Correct, and the other was retaliation, arguing they took negative actions against her because she took leave and asked for accommodations like remote work. And the NYS

HRL has a longer statute of limitations doesn't it generally? Yes three years, which is longer than the standard FMLA two years So what did she point to as the negative actions the adverse employment actions under state law? Primarily two things that limitation on her remote work We discussed and her subsequent transfer to a new role, a role she argued had fewer responsibilities, specifically no direct reports anymore. Losing direct reports often feels like a step down. Was that seen as an adverse action? Well, that was part of the dispute. Kemp framed it as a demotion, essentially pushed on her

after her supervisor suggested she look for something less demanding. But Regeneron had a different story. They did. They contended that Kemp herself had actually started those conversations, saying she wanted a less demanding role. Ah, OK.

So disagreement on who initiated the move. Common in these cases, I guess. Very common. But interestingly, the Second Circuit didn't actually decide definitively whether the remote work limit or the transfer were legally adverse actions under NYSHRL. They didn't rule on that. Why not?

Because once again, the statute of limitations came into play, even with a three-year window for NYSHRL. So even if those were discriminatory or retaliatory acts, the clock had run out. That's what the court found. The key is when the employee gets definite notice of the adverse action. And when was that for Kemp? She was sold about the remote work limits back in July 2016.

And the discussion about looking for another role also happened around then, July 2016. And critically, Kemp herself admitted she'd basically accepted the new position by October 2016. Her old job was posted around that time. And she didn't file her lawsuit until November 2019. Right. More than three years after she had definite notice of those key events in mid to late 2016. So the three-year NYSHRL clock had expired too. Correct. They also looked at something called the continuing wrong doctrine. What is that?

It's an idea that sometimes if there's an ongoing pattern of discrimination, the clock might keep resetting. But New York law is pretty strict on it. How so? It generally only applies to ongoing unlawful acts, not just the continuing impact of a past act. The court decided Kemp's situation, the transfer, the remote work limit, were discrete events that happened in 2016, and their effects later didn't restart the clock. So that doctrine didn't help her extend the deadline.

No, it didn't apply here, according to the court. Okay, there was one more claim, right? Constructive discharge. Yes. She argued that things got so bad, the limited remote work, the perceived emotion, that it created an intolerable work environment So bad that she felt forced to resign which she did by retiring in January 2017 Basically saying you didn't fire me, but you made things so unbearable. I have no choice but to leave exactly That's the essence of constructive discharge, but under New York law. It's a really high bar to meet What do you need to show you have to prove the working conditions were objectively

so intolerable that any reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. And crucially, that the employer deliberately created those conditions to make the employee quit. Deliberately? That sounds tough to prove. It is. And the court didn't think Kemp met that standard. Why not? They pointed out that even after the transfer she kept the same salary and the same pay grade. Ah okay no pay cut. Right and while her duties changed the court felt a reasonable person wouldn't necessarily find that situation so intolerable they had to resign. So just being unhappy with a new role isn't enough. Generally no Not for constructive discharge.

Dissatisfaction alone doesn't meet the legal standard of intolerability, especially without a change in pay or status. Okay. Let's quickly touch on Regeneron's side from their formal answer. How did they defend against these claims? Well, as you'd expect, their initial answer denied most of Kemp's allegations outright. Standard procedure, often. Pretty much. But then they also raised several affirmative defenses. These are reasons why, even if some of Kemp's facts were true, they should still win. Like what?

Things like arguing she failed to state a valid legal claim in the first place, the statute of limitations defense, which obviously proved very effective for them. They also argued that any actions they took were for legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons. And they even threw in a defense that Kemp didn't properly try to mitigate or lessen any damages she might have suffered. Okay, a multi-pronged defense. And just looping back to the very start of the court process, the district court, the first court to rule, they initially granted summary judgment for Regeneron, right? Kicking the case out before a full trial.

They did, yes. Summer judgment means the court thinks there are no real factual disputes to send to a jury and one side should win based just on the law. And what was their main reasoning at that stage? The district court leaned heavily on the idea that Kemp hadn't shown an actual denial of FMLA benefits. At that time, that court interpreted FMLA interference more narrowly, requiring some kind of denial. OK. And on the NYSHRL claims, the district court basically

said there wasn't enough proof that the remote work limit or the transfer were truly adverse actions driven by discrimination or retaliation. But then the Second Circuit, the appeals court, disagreed somewhat on the FMLA standard. Yes, as we discussed. The Second Circuit clarified that interference doesn't require a flat denial of benefits. Discouragement can be enough. A subtle but important difference in interpretation. But even with that different view on the standard, they still ended up agreeing with the final outcome summary judgment for Regeneron. Just for different reasons?

Mainly, yes. Primarily because the statute of limitations had run out on both the FMLA and NYSHRL claims, and they didn't find evidence of willful violation for the FMLA part. So the Second Circuit's ruling kind of refines the law on FMLA interference? It does. It sends a message to employers, be careful not to discourage leave even if you approve the paperwork. Yeah. But it also shows how critical these procedural rules like statutes of limitation can be.

They can decide a case regardless of the underlying merits sometimes. Absolutely. Okay. So let's try to distill this. For our listener, what are the big takeaways from this Kemp versus Regeneron case? What should they really remember? Okay, I think there are a few key things. First, on FMLA, employers can interfere with rights even without denying leave.

Discouraging actions count. That's important. But second, proving that interference was willful to get that longer three-year statute of limitations. That's a high bar. You generally need pretty clear proof of intent or recklessness. Got it. What about the state law side?

For NYSHRL and likely similar state laws, that statute of limitations is just critical. Knowing when that clock starts ticking, when you have definite notice of the adverse action is paramount. Delay can be fatal to a claim. So don't wait if you think something's wrong. Pretty much. And finally, remember that constructive discharge is tough to prove. Changes in job duties, if your paying grades stay the same, usually won't be enough. Even if you're really unhappy with the change, it has to be truly intolerable.

This whole case really highlights the tricky balance, doesn't it? Balancing work, family care, navigating these complex laws, it makes you wonder, what are the practical lessons here for employees and employers facing similar situations day to day? That's the big question, isn't it? For employees, I'd say, know your rights, FMLA, state laws, and crucially, know the deadlines. Document everything if you feel something's off.

Keep records. Good advice. And for employers. For employers, it's a reminder that FMLA compliance is more than just processing forms. It's about the environment you create. Can people take leave without feeling penalized? And with remote work being so prevalent,

having clear, consistently applied policies on remote work and accommodations prevalent, having clear, consistently applied policies on remote work and accommodations is just essential now. Avoid making exceptions that look discriminatory later. Clarity and consistency seem key. Definitely. Helps avoid these kinds of disputes down the line.

And if someone listening wants to dig deeper into FMLA or NYSHRL, where should they look? Well, the best place to start is often the source. Look up the actual text of the Family and Medical Leave Act online. Same for the New York State Human Rights Law. The government websites usually have the statutes. Reading the actual laws, maybe summaries from reputable sources like the Department of Labor or state human rights divisions, gives you a solid foundation.

You could also search for other court cases dealing with FMLA interference, remote work accommodations, or associational discrimination to see how these principles are applied in different contexts. Great suggestions. Really helps put the specific case into a broader context. Thanks for breaking down all these complexities for us. My pleasure. It's a fascinating case to unpack. Indeed. Until our next deep dive. If you like the Employee Survival Guide, I'd really encourage you to leave a review. We try really hard to produce information

to you that's informative, that's timely, that you can actually use and solve problems on your own and at your employment. So if you like to leave a review anywhere you listen to our podcast, please do so. And leave five stars because anything less than five is really not as good, right? I'll keep it up. I'll keep the standards up. I'll keep the information flowing at you. If you'd like to send me an email and ask me a question, I'll actually review it and

post it on there. You can send it to mcaru at capclaw.com. That's capclaw.com.