## Facts

- Lisa M. Lupyan worked as an instructor for Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (CCI) starting in 2004.
- In late 2007, Lupyan’s supervisor suggested she take a leave of absence due to apparent depression.
- Lupyan initially requested “personal leave” for December 4–31, 2007.
- After Lupyan provided medical certification for a mental health condition, CCI decided the leave qualified as FMLA leave.
- On December 19, 2007, a CCI administrator met with Lupyan, directed her to initial a “Family Medical Leave” designation on the leave form, and adjusted her anticipated return date to April 1, 2008; CCI did not claim that FMLA rights were explained during the meeting.
- CCI asserted it mailed Lupyan an FMLA designation/rights notice letter the same day; Lupyan swore she never received it and did not know she was on FMLA leave until she attempted to return to work.
- In March 2008, Lupyan advised CCI she had been released to return with restrictions; on April 1, 2008, she was told she could not return with restrictions.
- After Lupyan obtained a full release, CCI terminated her on April 9, 2008, citing low enrollment and that she had not returned within the 12 weeks of FMLA leave.
- Lupyan sued for FMLA interference (inadequate notice causing loss of job-protected leave) and FMLA retaliation (termination for taking leave).
- The district court granted summary judgment to CCI, relying on CCI’s mailing evidence and a presumption that a properly mailed letter is received.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of routine mailing of an FMLA notice letter, plus a presumption of receipt, entitled the employer to summary judgment despite the employee’s sworn denial of receipt.
2. Whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed on FMLA interference based on alleged failure to provide required notice of FMLA designation, rights, obligations, and consequences of not returning within 12 weeks.
3. Whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed on FMLA retaliation, including whether the employer’s stated reasons for termination were pretextual.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed summary judgment for CCI and remanded.
- The court held that the common-law presumption of receipt arising from proof of mailing is rebuttable and may be overcome at the summary-judgment stage by the addressee’s sworn denial of receipt.
- Because receipt of the notice letter was genuinely disputed and material to whether CCI provided adequate FMLA notice, summary judgment was improper on the interference claim.
- Viewing the evidence in the employee’s favor, disputed facts about notice, timing, and the employer’s stated reasons for termination also precluded summary judgment on retaliation.

## Legal Principles

- Proof that an employer mailed a notice can create a rebuttable presumption that the notice was received, but the presumption is not conclusive at summary judgment.
- A specific, sworn denial of receipt can create a triable issue of fact on whether notice was received, particularly when the employer’s mailing proof is routine or limited.
- FMLA notice obligations require timely communication of designation and of the employee’s rights, obligations, and the consequences of failing to return within the protected leave period; failure to provide adequate notice can support an interference claim if it causes prejudice.
- In FMLA retaliation claims analyzed under burden shifting, close timing and disputed notice circumstances may support an inference of pretext sufficient to reach a jury.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that an employee’s sworn denial of receiving an FMLA notice letter can rebut any presumption of receipt and create a jury question, and it reinstated the employee’s interference and retaliation claims because disputed facts about notice and pretext made summary judgment inappropriate.


Lupyan v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 761 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2014)