Tag Archives: FMLA

Save the Date! SmithAmundsen Complimentary Webinar – August 23rd – FMLA & ADA: Understanding a Complicated Legal Relationship

Employers of all shapes and sizes face the challenge of managing employee medical issues. Suzanne Newcomb provides insight to help employers manage risk and avoid liability by learning to better manage medical issues that arise. This program focuses on the FMLA and the ADA, and offers attendees specific insight on:

  • Identifying triggers requiring action under the FMLA and the ADA
  • Effectively managing employee medical leave
  • Avoiding common pitfalls
  • And more!

Register for the webinar here!

Recent Federal Court Decision Requires Employees to Shoulder Some of the Burden of Disability Accommodations

Contributed by Steven Jados, October 3, 2016

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the laws of many states generally require employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” to certain employees with disabilities. This requires the employer and employee to participate in an interactive process aimed at finding job changes that allow the employee to continue working. For many employers, that requirement raises many questions for which there are no simple, definitive answers—which forces employers to make accommodation decisions amid considerable uncertainty.

gavelbwBut the recent decision in Dillard v. City of Austin, Texas, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, may help employers handle situations when employees cause a breakdown in the interactive process. The plaintiff in the case, Derrick Dillard, was employed to operate machinery and perform manual labor until he was injured on-the-job in March 2011. Thereafter, he received FMLA leave and, after that ran out, additional discretionary leave. In early 2012, Dillard was cleared to return to work for the first time, albeit in a limited capacity that did not allow him to resume his former job.

In an effort to accommodate Dillard’s medical restrictions and return him to work, the City offered him a position as an administrative assistant, even though he had no relevant experience and his qualifications for the position were lacking. Dillard expressed reservations, but ultimately took the job in May 2012.  As an attempt to ensure that Dillard succeeded as an administrative assistant, the City provided him typing and computer training, allowed him to “shadow” another administrative assistant, and provided Dillard access to additional training programs. But Dillard’s skills did not improve and he did not pursue additional training. Instead, he played computer games, made personal calls, repeatedly arrived late, left early, or missed work altogether—and lied about his work time. By September 2012, the City determined that Dillard’s performance was unsatisfactory, and terminated his employment.

Shortly thereafter, Dillard sued the City, alleging that it unlawfully failed to accommodate his disability and terminated him because of it. The trial court ruled against Dillard, and, on appeal, the Fifth Circuit stated that the law required Dillard “to make an honest effort to learn and carry out the duties of his new job with the help of the training the City offered him.” But because Dillard did not do that, the court determined that Dillard was solely responsible for the breakdown in the reasonable accommodation process, and the City was not liable under the ADA or Texas State law.

Now, employers should note that this decision is not necessarily the law of the land for the entire U.S., because decisions of the Fifth Circuit are controlling law only in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Employers must also realize that reasonable accommodation cases are extremely fact-specific, which makes it unlikely that this outcome can be expected every time an employer faces an ADA lawsuit. In particular, if the City had not been so accommodating, and if the employee’s lack of good faith effort was not so clear, the case might have been decided differently.

The bottom line is that although employers must engage in good faith efforts to find a reasonable accommodation, the employee has the same obligation—so employers should not hesitate to document instances in which an employee stands in the way of making a successful accommodation, because such documentation may later provide a basis for disciplinary action, as well as a defense to claims of discrimination and failure to accommodate.

Employee States FMLA Claim Despite Never Having Taken Qualifying Leave

Contributed by Suzanne Newcomb

Last week a Federal District Court ruled a disgruntled former employee could proceed with her interference and retaliation claims under the FMLA even though she never actually took any FMLA-qualifying leave. The case serves as a reminder of just how easily an employee triggers the statute’s broad protections.

out of office signThe former employee submitted completed FMLA paperwork relating to a chronic condition and the employer approved her request to take intermittent leave, as needed, in the future. She never actually took leave under the statute and, in fact, she did not even ask for any leave after her employer approved her request for intermittent leave. Yet, when she was terminated some time later, she sued claiming her employer interfered with her FMLA rights and retaliated against her for exercising her FMLA protected rights. Her employer argued it could not have “interfered with” her FMLA rights or retaliated against her for taking FMLA leave, because she had never actually taken or asked to take leave under the statute. The Court disagreed and allowed her claims to proceed.

The FMLA requires employees to provide advance notice of their need for leave whenever possible and therefore, the court reasoned, it is only logical that the statute’s employee protections trigger as soon as the employee takes any action that invokes her rights under the statute. The retaliation claim is even more straight-forward. The plain language of the statute clearly prohibits retaliation against an employee who exercises or attempts to exercise her FMLA rights. An employee is not required to actually take leave in order to activate the statute’s protections.

This and other similar decisions serve as a reminder that an employee exercises her protected FMLA rights, and therefore triggers the statute’s protections, by simply putting her employer on notice of her possible need for a leave that may qualify under the Act. This could be by requesting, completing or submitting FMLA paperwork, but it does not have to be so formalized. In fact, an employee is not required to say “FMLA” or even “medical leave” in order to trigger the FMLA’s protection. Anything that puts the employer on notice that an absence could be FMLA-qualifying or that an employee may need leave for a qualifying reason at some point in the future, could trigger the employer’s FMLA obligations and the notice requirements.

Employees That Are Erratic and Disruptive, While Suffering From A Mental Illness, Can Still Be Terminated Under The ADA

Contributed by Julie Proscia

Erratic behavior, caused by an underlying medical condition, does not necessarily mean a free pass under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In March, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Walz v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc., upheld the termination of a bipolar employee, finding that the termination did not violate the ADA. Identifying and accommodating employees with overt physical disabilities is substantially easier than accommodating behavior that is disruptive and/or erratic and caused by mental illness. Because of the difficulty in addressing these types of issues, employers are often unsure of what to do–and thus do nothing. This ruling is good news for employers that struggle with disciplining and ultimately terminating individuals that are disruptive in the workplace and who cannot perform the essential functions of their position with or without a reasonable accommodation.

In Walz v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc., the plaintiff worked for Ameriprise as a process analyst. The position required not only good communication skills but also the ability to work well in a team. Starting in 2012, the plaintiff began to interrupt meetings, disturb coworkers, and disrespect her supervisor. After Walz’s supervisor had repeated discussions with her about her behavior, including offers of assistance and time off, she was eventually issued a disciplinary warning. Walz then applied for FMLA leave which was granted by a third party vendor that administers the leave requests for Ameriprise. Neither the third party vendor nor Walz ever informed Ameriprise of the reason for the FMLA leave. Upon her return to work, Walz provided a doctor’s note stating that her medications had been stabilized and was released for duty. The plaintiff was then given, reviewed, and signed a document that explained Ameriprise’s policy against disability discrimination and the procedure for requesting a reasonable accommodation. Within months of her return to work, Walz again began to engage in disruptive and erratic behavior to both her colleagues and supervisor, and was ultimately terminated. Throughout this time, Walz never requested a reasonable accommodation or reported the nature of her illness.

Walz subsequently sued Ameriprise alleging that it violated the ADA and should have known that she had a disability and forced her to take additional time off, despite the fact that she never disclosed the illness nor requested an accommodation. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit rejected her arguments and upheld the district court’s ruling. In doing so, the court found that Walz was not a qualified individual under the ADA because she could not perform the essential functions of her position with or without accommodation. Moreover, it held that the employer does not have a duty to “guess” an employee’s disability when the employee does not inform it of the illness or injury.

Bottom Line: Employers can discipline and terminate employees for erratic, rude and disruptive behavior even if the cause is ultimately related to an underlying medical condition. In a note of caution, employers still need to engage in the interactive process and investigate reasonable accommodations if the employee has disclosed a medication condition causing the behavior.

California Law Update: New Family Rights Act Regulations Starting July 1, 2015

Contributed by Heather BaileyCalifornia

As California employers are well aware, the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) gives employees certain leave rights for medical conditions, similar to the federal Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  However, starting July 1, 2015, the regulations are updated to align more with FMLA in certain areas and to clarify areas where CFRA is different than FMLA.

CFRA alignment includes:

  • “Covered employers” now contains successors in interest and joint employers are defined similar to FMLA;
  • Spouse is defined to include same-sex spouses as FMLA;
  • When calculating the 12 months of eligibility cut off, the break in service is now seven years or more like FMLA;
  • Employer has five business days to respond to the need for CFRA leave;
  • Key employees are defined as those in the highest 10% of the workforce; and
  • Employers have the ability to deny reinstatement if an employee fraudulently uses CFRA leave, doesn’t cooperate with the medical certification process or fails to cooperate with employer questions re: leave.

It is important to highlight some of the key variances that remain between the two very alike, but different medical leave laws:

  • If your workforce has 10% or more employees who speak another language as their primary one, you must translate the CFRA notice in that language.
  • New CFRA Certification of Health Care provided should be used.
  • Although under FMLA, an HR professional or administrator may contact the doctor to authenticate or clarify a medical certification, under CFRA, they may only contact the doctor to authenticate.
  • Second opinions? More difficult under CFRA.  You need a “good faith, objective reason” to request one, and don’t bother asking for one unless it’s for the employee’s serious health condition.
  • During the certification process, employers may not ask for additional information such as the underlining diagnosis of the need for leave or symptoms.
  • Medical continuation must be provided for employee’s entire unpaid pregnancy disability leave (4 months) including the subsequent CFRA leave (12 weeks).
  • While an employee is on Paid Family Leave, employer cannot require they exhaust/use any accrued paid leave during this time even if it’s covered under the CFRA.

Practice Tips:

  • Use the new CFRA medical certification form;
  • Update your handbooks and related policies with the new changes;
  • Update the poster with the revised CFRA poster;
  • Survey your existing workforce to determine if at least 10% speak a different language;
  • Vet out a reputable translation service for the new notices (in the event the department does not do so on its own);
  • Train, train, train your management so they understand the triggers so they know when to get HR involved in employee leaves; and
  • When in doubt, contact your labor and employment counsel.

New “Place of Celebration” DOL Final Rule Increases the Availability of FMLA Leave for Same-Sex Spouses

Contributed by Steven Jados

On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a final rule modifying the definition of “spouse” under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

This final rule, which will take effect on March 27, 2015, is a shift from the current language of 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.102 and 825.122(b), which defines “spouse” to mean “a husband or wife as defined or recognized under State law for purposes of marriage in the State where the employee resides, including common law marriage in States where it is recognized.”

As of March 27, the definition of “spouse” under the FMLA regulations will no longer depend on an employee’s state of residence.  Instead, whether someone is an according-to-the-FMLA spouse will be determined by the law of the state where the employee’s marriage occurred—the “place of celebration.”  Specifically, the new definition will be:

Spouse, as defined in the statute, means a husband or wife.  For purposes of this definition, husband or wife refers to the other person with whom an individual entered into marriage as defined or recognized under state law for purposes of marriage in the State in which the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside of any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and could have been entered into in at least one State. This definition includes an individual in a same-sex or common law marriage that either:

(1) Was entered into in a State that recognizes such marriages; or

(2) If entered into outside of any State, is valid in the place where entered into and could have been entered into in at least one State.

Employers will note that this change still does not put parties to a civil union or domestic partnership on equal footing with married couples.

In light of the fact that not all states currently recognize same-sex marriage (or common-law marriage for that matter), this rule change may require employers may to take extra steps to determine where an employee’s marriage occurred.

As employers must now make such an inquiry, it is critically important that employers request documentation to establish the existence of a FMLA-defined marriage in a non-discriminatory matter.  Additionally, FMLA forms will need to be reviewed and updated, and those employees who administer FMLA programs or otherwise receive FMLA requests (which could mean virtually any supervisory or managerial employee), must be trained to understand that determining a spouse’s FMLA eligibility may be more complex than it has been in the past.

Regular Attendance Remains an Essential Job Requirement Notwithstanding Employer’s Work-At-Home Policy

Contributed by Jonathon Hoag

The 7th Circuit’s recent decision in Taylor-Novotny v. Health Alliance Medical Plans, Inc., 772 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2014) provides a reminder to all employers that in order for an employee to establish an ADA claim he or she must show they are a “qualified individual with a disability.”  That is, the employee must be able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.  In this case, the 7th Circuit reiterated that regular attendance is an essential function of most jobs and the fact that an employer allows flexibility through a work-at-home policy does not automatically eliminate the essential nature of regular attendance.

Home OfficeNovotny began work in November 2005 and experienced almost immediate punctuality and attendance problems.  She was rated poorly in this area during  her January 2007 performance evaluation.  A few months later Novotny was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.  The company adjusted Novotny’s start time and made other accommodations to Novotny’s physical work space.  Novotny was also approved for intermittent leave under FMLA.

In 2008, Novotny began working from home two days a week under a work-at-home policy.  The company required Novotny to adhere to an agreed-upon work schedule, to be available by phone, email, voice mail, pager, or modem during that scheduled time, to report absences, and to be available for staff meetings and other in-services.  Novotny continued to have difficulties with attendance and tardiness.  The company documented the ongoing issues and stressed that Novotny could use intermittent FMLA leave when applicable, but she would be subject to discipline if she failed to timely communicate the absence or tardiness and for absences and tardiness unrelated to FMLA.

In May 2010, the company issued a final warning due to Novotny’s ongoing late arrivals.  Following this final warning, Novotny logged in late on multiple occasions while working from home.  Novotny provided excuses for logging in much later than her start time, but there was no dispute that Novotny did not timely notify her supervisor when logging in late.  In July 2010, Novotny was terminated.  Novotny filed suit alleging disability discrimination, among other things.

While the court noted that Novotny’s claim would fail because she was not meeting the company’s legitimate expectations, it disposed of her claim by ruling that she cannot allege disability discrimination because she was not a “qualified individual” with a disability.  Novotny’s condition was a “disability” under the ADA, but the evidence was clear that Novotny had ongoing attendance and punctuality problems.  As such, Novotny could not perform an essential function of the job (i.e. maintain reliable and regular attendance) with or without accommodation.  Novotny pointed out that she was allowed to work from home arguing that attendance and punctuality standards were flexible and not an essential function of the job.  The court disagreed by emphasizing that the work from home arrangement was pursuant to a written policy that clearly articulated requirements for her to maintain a regular schedule and be available at scheduled times.

The company was able to defeat Novotny’s claim largely because it had clear documentation to establish that regular attendance and punctuality were essential job functions.  Employers should keep in mind that the courts give employers a fair amount of discretion in determining what aspects of a job are essential, but the employer’s policies, job descriptions, and other writings must be reviewed and updated to remain consistent with the employer’s expectations of what constitutes an essential job function.