Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 761 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2014). Even in these days of electronic filing, Twitter, Facebook, and other electronic means of communicating, some communications still go by mail. This opinion by Chief Judge McKee under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.(“FMLA”), discusses the “mailbox rule,” a doctrine that dates at least from 1884, the date of a Supreme Court of the United States opinion on the subject on which Chief Judge McKee relied. The result was a reversal of an order granting summary judgment to the defendant that the district court had entered.
Plaintiff, an employee of defendant, asked to take “personal leave” time from December 4 through December 31, 2007, in order to deal with issues of depression. Defendant determined that plaintiff was eligible for leave under the FMLA rather than personal leave. When plaintiff completed a “Request for Leave” form, defendant instructed her to initial a box labeled “Family Medical Leave.” Defendant also changed plaintiff’s date of return to work to April 1, 2008. According to plaintiff, defendant did not discuss her rights under the FMLA at that time, and defendant did not assert that such a conversation did take place. Defendant did claim, however, that it had sent plaintiff a letter, by regular mail, that told her that her leave had been designated as FMLA leave and explained her rights under the FMLA. Plaintiff denied receiving any such letter. When, by April 9, 2008, plaintiff had not yet returned to work, defendant terminated her employment due to low student enrollment, and because “she had not returned to work within the twelve weeks allotted for FMLA leave.” Plaintiff contended that this was the first time she learned that her leave had been treated as FMLA leave.
Plaintiff sued, alleging (relevant to this appeal) that defendant had interfered with her rights under the FMLA by failing to tell her that her leave was being treated as FMLA leave. Defendant moved for summary judgment, submitting affidavits from its mailroom employees, who swore (years after the fact) that they had mailed plaintiff the alleged letter that informed her that she was taking FMLA leave. If that letter had been sent and received, it would have satisfied the FMLA’s notice requirement and defeated plaintiff’s claim. But plaintiff submitted her own affidavit denying that she had received such a letter. The district court invoked the mailbox rule and granted summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed, and the Third Circuit reversed. The standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is plenary, and Chief Judge McKee found that the district court had misapplied the mailbox rule.
As Chief Judge McKee explained, the mailbox rule provides a presumption that a properly addressed letter, with sufficient postage, “reached its destination at the regular time, and was received by the person to whom it was addressed.” But that presumption is rebuttable, and its strength varies. A strong presumption of receipt arises when certified mail is used, since there is “actual evidence of delivery in the form of a receipt.” Regular mail, however, has no evidence of receipt, and using regular mail creates a “weaker presumption.”
Here, defendnat offered only self-serving affidavits of its employees who said they had mailed the letter. But defendant had no evidence that plaintiff received the letter. Plaintiff’s affidavit denying receipt, though perhaps also self-serving, was enough to overcome the weak presumption created by the use of regular mail.
Chief Judge McKee concluded by stating that “[i]n this age of computerized communications and handheld devices, it certainly is not expecting too much to require businesses that wish to avoid a material dispute about the receipt of a letter to use some form of mailing that includes verifiable receipt when mailing something as important as a legally mandated notice. The negligible cost and inconvenience of doing so is dwarfed by the practical consequences and potential unfairness of simply relying on business practices in the sender’s mailroom.” Parties who wish to benefit from the mailbox rule would do well to heed that advice.