Topical FMLA Archive

Medical Certification

 Employee's certification failed to substantiate serious health condition

• DILLON v. CARLTON
  U.S. Dist. Ct. Middle District of FL, 4 WH Cases2d 1879, 8/14/1997, No. 96-434-CIV-ORL-22
  
  Employer had legitimate nondiscriminatory reason to discharge employee with history of tardiness and absenteeism who left work early after denial of her request for reduced work schedule to spend more time with her son who had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Final medical certification submitted by employee failed to certify that son had "serious health condition." Employee contends that employer's request for final certification was merely request for "recertification" for ongoing health condition, but son's condition had improved sufficiently for employee to return to regular work schedule.

  Employer properly denied FMLA leave request of employee who submitted medical certification that did not certify that her son had serious health condition, despite contention that Department of Labor regulations required employer to grant provisional leave and seek second opinion. The regulations require that action only when employer has cause to doubt validity of medical certification.

  Employee's claim that employer failed to give timely notice of need for medical certification before it terminated her is irrelevant, where employee provided full certification before termination, which indicated that her son did not suffer from serious health condition.

  Employer did not violate FMLA when it discharged employee who left work early after her request for FMLA leave was denied. Employer's denial of leave request was proper and there is nothing to suggest that employer's reason for discharge--employee's absence from work--was pretext. Nothing suggests that employer harbored secret motive to deny employee rights under the Act or to retaliate against her for assertion of those rights. The timing of discharge, standing alone, is insufficient to raise inference of pretext.

• JOHNSON v. PRIMERICA, also known as THE TRAVELERS INC
  U.S. Dist. Ct. Southern District of NY, 3 WH Cases2d 109, 1/30/1996, No. 94 Civ. 4869
  
  Employee's asthmatic son did not have ''serious health condition'' within meaning of FMLA during period employee was absent from work, where there was no evidence that son was acutely ill, undergoing complex therapy, or so incapacitated that he was required by doctor's order to remain home from nursery school. Employee failed to give employer notice that his absence was due to his son's illness and thus may have been a qualified leave under FMLA. Employee's written request indicated only that leave was based on matter of financial importance to his family, and fact that employer knew of son's asthmatic condition did not require employer to inquire as to whether leave request was qualified under act.

  Employee cannot invoke protection of FMLA for justification of absence within two days of returning to work if he made no attempt to contact employer in period immediately following receipt of notice that he had been terminated for failing to report or phone in to work. Employer's failure to post required FMLA notice might excuse employee from requirement of advance notice of need for leave under act but it does not mean that employer is liable for employee's failure to identify medical reason for his absence.

Excessive absences, insufficient medical certification

• STOOPS v. ONE CALL COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED
  U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit, 4 WH Cases2d 779, 3/31/1998, No. 97-1895
  
  Employer did not violate FMLA when it discharged employee for excessive absences after employee's doctor certified that employee, who suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome, was not presently incapacitated and could return to work. No merit was found in employee's contention that once he called in sick due to his chronic fatigue syndrome after such certification, employer was required to investigate further and require doctor's certification if it wanted verification of his condition. Once employee said he was missing work because of chronic fatigue syndrome, he was providing reason that the employer already knew the doctor had concluded was not qualifying reason for FMLA leave. If employee knew doctor's initial certification was wrong, it was employee's burden to have it corrected, but he did nothing to obtain contrary opinion either from that doctor or another one.

Total leave time not covered by medical certification

• MURRAY v. RED KAP INDUSTRIES, INC.
  U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit, 4 WH Cases2d 233, 10/9/1997, No. 96-60884
  
  Employer did not violate FMLA when it discharged employee who missed eight days of work after she became ill with respiratory tract infection, even though employee had period of incapacity within meaning of act for first workweek of her absence. Employee did not suffer from serious health condition during second week of absence, inasmuch as she has not shown that she was unable to work during second week and she did not receive any subsequent treatment for her condition during that week. Employee contends doctor told her not to work as long as she was weak and that she was convalescing during second week, but doctor gave employee work release stating she could return to work on Monday of second week. Employee did not contact her supervisor to tell her why she was staying home the second week.