by Jeffrey A. Gruen
Not Allowing Employee to Clarify Vague Medical Certification May be FMLA Interference
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit recently found that an employer can be liable for interference with an employee’s Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights when it denies leave on the basis of a vague medical certification without first providing notice and a seven-day period to cure (resolve) the deficiency. Facts Deborah Hansler worked for Lehigh Valley Health Network as a technical partner. In March 2013, she began experiencing various health symptoms, including shortness of breath, nausea, and vomiting. Her physician completed a medical certification form stating that she would need two days of intermittent leave a week for about a month, but didn’t set forth the nature or duration of her condition. Hansler submitted the certification to Lehigh Valley with her request for leave under the FMLA. She was subsequently unable to work five days that month because of her condition. Although Lehigh Valley didn’t notify her that it had denied her request for FMLA leave, it terminated her employment at the end of the month based on her absenteeism. Early the next month, her doctor diagnosed her with diabetes and high blood pressure. Hansler filed suit in federal court, alleging Lehigh Valley unlawfully interfered with her FMLA rights when it failed to notify her that her certification was deficient and give her an opportunity to cure it and also retaliated against her for requesting leave. The district court granted Lehigh Valley’s motion to dismiss the case based on its argument that Hansler’s medical certification stated that her condition would last for one month, which didn’t qualify it as a “serious health condition” under the FMLA. To qualify as a serious health condition under the FMLA, a chronic condition must last for an “extended period of time.” The district court explained that because Hansler’s certification didn’t demonstrate that she had a serious health condition, she wasn’t entitled to leave, and Lehigh Valley didn’t have to give her an opportunity to cure the deficiency in the certification. Consequently, the district court ruled that Lehigh Valley didn’t violate the FMLA by terminating her employment based on her absenteeism. The district court cited the unfortunate timing in this case, noting that Hansler’s condition wasn’t diagnosed until after the denial of her leave and her discharge. However, it dismissed her retaliation claim based on the fact that she wasn’t entitled to leave. Hansler appealed the decision to the 3rd Circuit. 3rd Circuit’s decision The 3rd Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court explained that when an employee submits an incomplete or insufficient medical certification, the employer must inform the employee what additional information is necessary and provide her seven calendar days to cure the deficiency before denying FMLA leave. The court declined to address other jurisdictions’ rulings that a certification stating that an employee doesn’t have a serious health condition requiring leave permits the employer to deny leave without giving the employee time to fix the deficiency. Instead, the court concluded that a vague, ambiguous, or nonresponsive certification that doesn’t contain an affirmative representation that the employee has no need for leave is “insufficient.” In this case, the court found that Hansler’s certification was vague and nonresponsive insofar as it requested intermittent leave for one month but failed to mention whether one month referred to the length of her leave request or the duration of her condition. Therefore, her insufficient certification triggered Lehigh Valley’s requirement to provide her with notice and a seven-day period to cure any deficiencies before it denied leave. Finally, the court emphasized the fairness element of its decision, stating that for an employee with an emerging condition, the extra few days provided by the cure period may mean the difference between a medical certification that supports leave and one that does not. The court also reinstated Hansler’s retaliation claim. Bottom line While the 3rd circuit decisions apply to certain states within its jurisdiction these guidelines are a good idea for all employers regardless of location. Given the 3rd Circuit’s ruling, employers must provide the required notice and seven-day cure period when an employee presents a medical certification that is insufficient to support an FMLA leave request because it is vague, ambiguous, or nonresponsive. Otherwise, you may face liability for FMLA interference claims. If you’re unsure how to proceed in a similar situation, it’s best to consult with counsel about the propriety of denying FMLA leave based on an insufficient medical certification.