The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Davis vs. Illinois Department of Human Services, has ruled that, based on facts already known to an employer, an employee may be entitled to additional leave rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) beyond those listed in a medical certification.
Law. Under the FMLA, eligible employees may take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year for (among other things) a serious health condition that prevents the employee from performing his or her job. Furthermore, employers are prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against employees who exercise their FMLA rights.
FMLA regulations permit an employer to require its employees to “support their requests for leave with a certification issued by a health care provider” and that the employer may request subsequent recertifications “on a reasonable basis.” The regulations also state that where an employee seeks intermittent leave for a serious health condition “that may result in unforeseeable episodes of incapacity,” the employer is, again, entitled to require a medical certification of this condition.
If the employer believes a certification to be incomplete or insufficient, it is obligated to inform the employee and “state in writing what additional information is necessary to make the certificate complete and sufficient.”
Facts. A pregnant employee missed several periods of work due to morning sickness. The employer responded by providing her with a FMLA notice and told her to obtain a medical certification for her condition.
The employee’s doctor provided the medical certification, noting that the employee’s pregnancy was considered high-risk, and that she required “additional testing done in addition to routine prenatal care.” The doctor also stated that she would need leave to attend periodic medical appointments. However, the doctor answered “no” to the following question contained in the certification: “Will the condition cause episodic flare-ups periodically preventing the employee from working?” Based on this information, the employer approved the employee’s FMLA leave, but the approval did not include leave for “possible flare-ups.”
Nevertheless, the employee continued to miss work shifts due to flare-ups related to her pregnancy. Eventually the employer designated some absences as “unauthorized absence” because, in its view, the absences for the flare-ups arising from the pregnancy went beyond the scope of its FMLA approval.
The employee sued for interference with her FMLA rights, and the employer responded that, based upon the medical certification, it approved the employee’s request for FMLA leave only for doctor’s appointments and not for “flare-ups” arising from the pregnancy. The district court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit.
Appeals Court. On review, the Seventh Circuit noted that “while it is true, as a general matter, that an employer may require a medical certification to support a request for FMLA leave, the employer was well-aware of [the employee’s] need to take intermittent leave for morning sickness.” Due to this knowledge, the Seventh Circuit ruled that, “[the] employee’s entitlement to FMLA leave is not strictly bound by the precise parameters laid out in the medical certification.”
In addition, the Seventh Circuit noted that, the medical certification was only the doctor’s “best estimate” of the employee’s condition and its potential impact. Thus, it determined that a reasonable jury could find that the employer had violated its FMLA obligations because it knew that she would need intermittent leave for morning sickness from her pregnancy.
Finally, Seventh Circuit noted the regulations provide that, “[T]he employer shall advise an employee whenever the employer finds a certification incomplete or insufficient and shall state in writing what additional information is necessary to make the certification complete and sufficient.” Therefore, a jury could also decide that the employer had failed to meet this FMLA requirement.
Based on the foregoing, the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.