In this case, Capps v. Mondelez
Global, LLC, the employee had a medical condition that caused arthritis
in his hips. The employee had hip replacement surgery and afterwards he
was approved for intermittent FMLA leave to address residual pain and
occasional flare-ups. After the employee returned from one of his
intermittent leaves, the employer discovered through an anonymous source that
the employee had been convicted for DUI on one of the days that he had been out
on leave. The employer terminated the employee for violating its
dishonesty policy after he failed to provide sufficient documentation
supporting his FMLA leave.
The employee sued claiming
violations of the FMLA and ADA. As for the employee’s FMLA retaliation
claim, the court found that the claim failed because the employer was able to
establish that it terminated the employee for misusing his FMLA leave and for
being dishonest about it, and because the employee could offer no evidence to
suggest that the employer did not honestly hold that belief. The court
also noted that there was no evidence showing that the employee had ever been
denied intermittent FMLA prior to the employer’s discovery of his DUI
conviction, nor was there any evidence of discriminatory animus on the part of
the employer prior to that time. As for the employee’s FMLA interference
claim, the court found that claim failed as well where there was no evidence
showing that FMLA benefits had actually been withheld from the employee.
Turning to the ADA, the employee
argued that his request for intermittent FMLA leave was protected by the ADA and that his employer failed to
accommodate his disability. The court acknowledged that, under some
circumstances, a request for FMLA leave may also qualify as a request for a
reasonable accommodation. However, in this case, the court found that
even if the employee’s request for intermittent FMLA leave could be construed
as a request for a reasonable accommodation, there was still no evidence to
suggest that he was denied requested leave at
any point.
So what insights does this case
offer to employers?
First, it highlights the importance of distinguishing
between an employee’s request and utilization of FMLA leave, and an employee’s conduct
or activities while on leave. An employee clearly may not be
disciplined for the former, but this case confirms that the FMLA does not
provide an absolute shield for the latter, particularly where misuse of FMLA
leave is concerned. Second, the decision highlights the interplay between
the FMLA and the ADA and underscores the importance of evaluating leave
requests individually and in context.
