Third Circuit Court Offers Employers Insight into FMLA and ADA

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently waded into the waters of the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), finding that an employer did not violate the FMLA or ADA where it legitimately believed an employee was misusing FMLA leave, and terminated the employee as a result.

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.

Social Media and the FMLA

Imagine for a moment: you are the administrator for a skilled nursing facility and your activities director has just informed you of a need to take FMLA leave for shoulder surgery.  You grant the FMLA request and your activities director takes the full twelve weeks he is allowed.  You then learn from his physician that he will need to extend his leave by an additional thirty days to complete physical therapy, which, of course, you oblige as non-FMLA leave.  Everything is fine – until you learn at some point during the director’s non-FMLA leave that he has been quite active and merry during his entire leave, evidenced by numerous Facebook posts showing him visiting Busch Gardens theme park in Tampa (twice), visiting St. Martin for several days, and posing by shipwrecks and cavorting in the ocean.  You learn he also may have been texting pictures of holiday decorations at Busch Gardens to his co-workers, ostensibly to share with them ideas for decorating the facility for the holiday season.  What do you do…what can you do?

This was the actual situation that faced the employer in a recent case from a federal district court in Florida, Jones v. Gulf Coast Health Care of Delaware, LLC.  Ultimately, the facility decided to terminate the activities director, believing that his Facebook and texting activity showed poor judgment as a supervisor and negatively impacted his co-workers.  The facility also claimed that the director’s conduct was prohibited by the facility’s social media policy, which prohibited any “social media usage that adversely affects job performance of fellow associates,” among other things.  The activities director – who later sued alleging FMLA retaliation – claimed that no specific violation of the social media policy was ever given to him as a reason for his termination and that, instead, he was told his was being terminated for abusing the FMLA.

In the end, the court found that the director failed to show causation – i.e. that he was retaliated because of his request to take FMLA leave – and that his retaliation claim therefore failed as a matter of law.  On this point, the court explained that the facility terminated the director for actions while on his FMLA and non-FMLA leave, not for requesting and taking the leave in the first instance, and that courts are generally not in the business of determining whether an employer’s personnel decisions are prudent or fair – as long as they comply with the law.

In this case, the court did not opine in detail on whether the facility’s social media policy tended to make its termination decision more fair than not – nor did it address the interesting question of how the facility actually obtained the director’s social media posts.  On summary judgment, the facts must be construed in the plaintiff’s favor and, in this case, the director disputed that he was told his termination was related to a violation of the social media policy.  Nonetheless, it is more likely than not that the facility’s social media policy would have substantiated its legitimate termination decision – just as it would tend to do for any other employer facing a similar situation.

Recent Decision Provides Case Study on Managing Suspected Alcohol Impairment

If an employer suspects that an employee may be coping with a substance abuse issue, such as alcoholism, what steps can it take to ensure that the employee is not coming to work impaired?  A recent federal court case explored this issue and found that an employer acted within the scope of the law when it required an employee to undergo a breathalyzer test for alcohol and, based on the results of that test, terminated the employee from his safety-sensitive position.

The employee in the case, Foos v. Taghleef Industries, worked with machinery that required him to follow several safety protocols to ensure his own safety and that of others.  During his employment, the employee went out on a number of FMLA-covered leaves.  When requesting to return from his last leave, his physician submitted a return to work note that identified his diagnosis as “acute alcoholic pancreatitis.”  Upon receiving the physician’s certification, a health and wellness manager became concerned that the employee might be consuming alcohol at work.  The concern was based on the employee’s history of pancreatitis (which the employer did not know was related to alcohol prior to the doctor’s certification), as well as information that the employee had been hurt in a bar fight (which resulted in one of the employee’s previous FMLA-covered leaves).  Based on these concerns in light of the employee’s safety-sensitive position, the company concluded that it had reasonable grounds to believe that the employee was coming to work impaired.  When the employee returned from work, the company therefore sent him to the hospital for a breathalyzer test.  The company then terminated the employee after his test came back positive.

Although the employee claimed that the alcohol test was unlawful under the ADA, the court concluded that, under these facts, it was reasonable for the company to inquire into whether the employee was able to perform his job.  The alcohol test was therefore “consistent with business necessity.”  Also bolstering the employer’s case was that it applied the same procedures any other time it suspected an employee was returning to work in an impaired condition.  In other words, there was no evidence that the company singled out this employee for treatment that was distinguishable from other employees.

Although this decision certainly provides some guidance as to the steps an employer can take to ensure an employee is not coming to work impaired, it is just that: a guidepost.  Each case – and each employee – must obviously be analyzed on an individual basis.

Revised Definition of "Spouse" Under FMLA Incorporates Same-Sex Marriages

The Department of Labor has issued a final rule that amends its FMLA regulations and provides employees in same-sex marriages the right to take leave to care for a spouse with a serious medical condition.  The new rule, published on February 25, 2015, comes on the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, which declared as unconstitutional a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act limiting the definition of “spouse” to opposite-sex marriages.

The most significant aspect of the new rule is that spousal status is now determined based on the place where an employee entered into marriage, or the “place of celebration.”  Previously, the DOL had determined spousal status based on a “place of residence” rule, which effectively deprived same-sex employees from qualifying as a spouse if they lived in a jurisdiction where same-sex marriages were not recognized.  Under the new rule, and according to the DOL, the “place of celebration” rule will allow all legally married couples to have uniform rights regardless of where they live.

The DOL’s comments to the new rule suggest that employers should see a decrease in administrative burdens under the new rule.  To the extent this is true, it will probably be most apparent for multi-state employers, who will not have to “consider the employee’s state of residence and the laws of that State in determining the employee’s eligibility for FMLA leave.”

Does a Request for Disability Benefits Qualify as a Request for an Accommodation of Leave Under the ADA?

Last month, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals answered this question in the negative and found that an employee’s request for long-term disability benefits did not amount to a request for a reasonable accommodation in the form of leave.  As a result, the Sixth Circuit held that the employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA failed where he could not point to any other evidence showing that he actually requested leave as a reasonable accommodation.

The employee in this case, Judge v. Landscape Forms, Inc., injured his arm while working at home.  The injury required surgery and the employee, Judge, was told by his doctor that the recovery time would be approximately four to six months.  In May 2011, Judge requested and was approved for FMLA leave until early August 2011.   During his leave, he also applied and was approved for long-term disability benefits beginning in July 2011.

Shortly before he was due to return to work, Judge informed Landscape Forms that he could not yet use his arm and that he would need six weeks of therapy.  He provided Landscape Forms a set of work restrictions, but he did not follow up or return to work after Landscape Forms asked for more clarification regarding the restrictions.  In late September 2011, Landscape Forms contacted Judge seeking information on his work restrictions.  Judge responded by faxing a note from his doctor with new work restrictions, but the note did not include any information as to Judge’s estimated date of recovery.  After receiving the doctor’s note, Landscape Forms terminated Judge on the grounds that it needed to maintain staffing levels and could not leave his position open indefinitely.   Judge was subsequently cleared to return to work without restrictions in November 2011.

Judge claimed that Landscape Forms discriminated against him and failed to accommodate his disability by not granting him leave until mid-November 2011.  The key issue for the Sixth Circuit was whether Judge actually requested leave as an accommodation and, if he did, whether the request was reasonable.  The court acknowledged that there is no “bright-line” test to determine when an employee’s request is sufficiently clear to qualify as a request for an accommodation.  However, on the facts of this case, the court found there was no evidence that Judge had ever made any statement that could be construed as a request for leave until mid-November 2011.  Although Judge argued that his request for long-term disability benefits constituted a request for an accommodation of leave, the Sixth Circuit disagreed.  Because Judge’s disability claim was processed through a third-party, which did not provide any information to Landscape Forms about the claim other than its approval, the Sixth Circuit found the request was insufficient to put Landscape Forms on notice that he was requesting leave as a reasonable accommodation or that he was seeking leave until mid-November 2011.

Given its finding that Judge never actually asked for additional leave as an accommodation, the Sixth Circuit did not reach the issue of whether the request would have been reasonable if properly made.  Had it reached this issue, the court might have had an opportunity, like the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in Hwang v. Kansas State University, to provide additional commentary on when a request for additional leave is reasonable under the ADA, and when it is not.  Obviously, this additional commentary will have to wait for another occasion.

FMLA: Discipline Unrelated to Leave Is Not Retaliatory

The New Hampshire Federal Court issued a recent decision affirming that an employer may take disciplinary action against an employee who has taken FMLA leave, provided the information is accurate and unrelated to the leave.  The Court in Ameen v. Amphenol Printed Circuits, Inc. (Opinion No. 2013 D.N.H. 177) granted summary judgment for the employer against an employee claiming he was terminated in retaliation for taking FMLA leave, and noted “an employee may not immunize himself from being discharged for reasons unrelated to the FMLA simply by taking leave under that statute.”

The employee had taken approved leaves following the birth of his child, but upon his return it was reported that he had been violating the company lunch and break policy by the manner in which he had punched in and out for breaks.  An investigation determined he was receiving a fifteen minute paid break per day in violation of company policy and it had been occurring for two years.  The supervisor who decided to terminate the employee had no knowledge of the FMLA leave.  The Court declined the plaintiff’s invitation to apply the cat’s paw theory of imputing motive up the chain to that decision maker because the individuals who made the initial report and reported the results of the investigation produced accurate information.  The Court concluded that if it allowed accurate reporting of employee misconduct unrelated to the FMLA conduct to count as evidence of retaliatory animus, an employer’s ability to discharge an employee for reasons unrelated to the protected FMLA conduct would be “significantly constrained.”

Had the facts been different – for example, if the information reported to the decision maker was inaccurate – the result would likely have been different.  While this opinion affirms an employer may discharge an employee for legitimate reasons unrelated to protective FMLA activity, the decision maker must take care to ensure the accuracy of the information that serves as the basis for the adverse employment action and that it is truly unrelated to the leave.

When Timing Isn't Everything: Court Finds that Timing of Termination Alone Fails to Establish Pretext for Retaliation

In many retaliation cases, the timing between a protected activity and an adverse employment action is an important factual issue.  To a large degree, this is a matter of common sense.  After all, when we think of cause and effect, we often think in terms of time and tend to assume that contemporaneous events are more likely to be related to each other than events occurring at more distant intervals.  It is no surprise, then, that employees often use (and courts often accept) evidence of close timing between a protected activity and an adverse employment action to satisfy the basic elements of a retaliation claim.

Yet evidence of temporal proximity only goes so far, as a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts illustrates.  In Wagner v. Baystate Health, Inc., a hospital lab assistant claimed her employer retaliated against her for taking FMLA leave by reprimanding her six weeks after returning from leave and then terminating her two weeks later.  The court found that the timing between the lab assistant’s leave and her discipline was sufficient to make out a “threshold” claim for retaliation and that a reasonable jury, looking just at the chronology without any other explanation, could conclude that the hospital retaliated against the lab assistant for taking FMLA leave.  However, the court found that the timing alone was insufficient to establish retaliation once the hospital provided a reasonable explanation for its actions.  In this case, the hospital explained its actions by pointing to a history of increasingly negative performance evaluations and the lab assistant’s failure to improve her behavior even after being put on a performance improvement plan.  Given the hospital’s explanation for the sequence of events, the court found the lab assistant needed to provide some additional evidence, other than timing, to show how the hospital’s explanation was invalid.
 
Wagner provides additional support for the proposition that an employee must show more than temporal proximity to overcome an employer’s legitimate non-retaliatory explanation for an adverse employment action.  At the same time, the decision serves as an important reminder for employers to document employee performance and any resulting disciplinary issues.  In the absence of this documentation, a disgruntled employee may have a better shot at convincing a judge that, in fact, “timing is everything.”