In Rodriquez vs. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the proper time for an employee to establish that a particular condition qualifies as a serious health condition under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) is the time at which the leave is requested or taken.
Law. In general, the FMLA entitles eligible employees to 12 “workweeks” of leave in a twelve-month period: (i) for their own “serious health condition”; (ii) to care for a seriously ill or injured spouse or dependent; (iii) for the birth, adoption or placement of a child; or (iv) to deal with “exigencies” related to their spouse’s military deployment.
The FMLA defines a “serious health condition” as an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves either inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility or “continuing treatment by a health care provider.” Generally, a chronic serious health condition is one that requires visits to a health care provider at least twice a year and continues over an extended period.
Facts. An employee took leave from work on several occasions due to migraine headaches. The employer’s committee subsequently recommended his discharge due to unauthorized absence. After that meeting, the employee requested leave under the FMLA, and visited a physician to obtain paperwork supporting his FMLA claim. Nevertheless, the employer terminated the employee, and the employee responded by suing the employer in federal district court for retaliation and interference under the FMLA.
District Court. A jury determined that the employer was liable for a FMLA violation but the district court overruled the jury, determining that “as a matter of law” the employee had failed to demonstrate that he had a “serious health condition.”
Appeals Court. The court of appeals agreed with the district court, noting that the employee had “presented no evidence of ever having visited a healthcare provider to treat his migraines before his termination and, apart from his visit to the doctor to obtain FMLA paperwork, no evidence of ever visiting one thereafter. Thus, [the employee] failed as a matter of law to show that he had a chronic serious health condition[.]”
Citing prior cases, the appeals court stated that the “operative time for determining whether a particular condition qualifies as a serious health condition is the time that leave is requested or taken.” With some exceptions that are not relevant to this case, “A patient does not have a ‘serious health condition’… if he waits to see a healthcare provider until after the relevant absences.”
The appeals court consequently affirmed the district court’s decision and ruled in favor of the employer.