The ruling came in Dave v. Montclair Board of Education, where Judge Brian R. Martinotti granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss. While the court dismissed the plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, it refused to toss the FMLA interference count.
Plaintiff Sejal Dave, who was hired by the Montclair Board of Education in 2019, sought a medical leave of absence in early 2023 due to worsening depression, anxiety, and panic attacks. The board approved the leave but allegedly failed to provide Dave with individualized notice of her right to seek FMLA leave for her condition.
Dave alleges that had she received such notice, she would have known she was eligible for twelve weeks of protected leave from February 27, 2023, through May 22, 2023. She argues this knowledge would have allowed her to manage her treatment and return to work within that protected window, potentially shielding her from the board’s decision not to renew her contract.
Instead, Dave remained on leave for the entirety of her requested timeframe, which extended beyond twelve weeks. The board did not designate or treat her leave as FMLA-protected. The board subsequently informed Dave in May 2023 that her contract would not be renewed, citing performance deficiencies that she alleges did not exist prior to her leave.
In its motion to dismiss, the board argued that Dave failed to allege how the lack of notice interfered with her rights or what specific notice was missing. The board also contended that because it had a general leave policy available to all employees, Dave was aware of her entitlements, distinguishing the case from Third Circuit precedent where an employee was unaware of the twelve-week limit.
Judge Martinotti rejected this distinction, citing Third Circuit authority that requires employers to provide both general and individual notice of FMLA rights. The court noted that even if general notice was provided, the failure to provide individualized notice can still constitute interference.
Relying on the Third Circuit’s decision in Conoshenti v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co., the judge held that an employee may state a valid interference claim when an employer’s failure to give individualized notice renders the employee unable to exercise their rights in a meaningful way, thereby causing injury.
Accepting Dave’s allegations as true, the court found she sufficiently alleged that the lack of individualized notice prevented her from structuring her leave to preserve job protection. Consequently, the FMLA interference claim in Count III was allowed to survive the motion to dismiss.