FMLA Rulings

When employees miss work because of a serious health condition and use leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the question arises as to how an employer can verify that the employee was in fact seriously ill and entitled to the leave.  Two recent court cases provide some guidance to employers on that issue, mainly as to what they can’t do.

Under the regulations accompanying the FMLA, when an employee requests leave for a serious health condition, the employer may request certification from the employee’s health care provider.  That certification is sufficient if it provides the date the health condition began, its probable duration, relevant medical facts, and a statement that the employee is unable to work.  If the employer finds the certification incomplete it must offer the employee an opportunity to cure the deficiency.

In a case involving a Federal Express employee, the worker was fired after missing three days of work because of bronchitis.  Fed Ex terminated him because his doctor did not provide the specific information requested; only stating that he had bronchitis and the date it began.  This made the absence unexcused and put the employee below the company attendance standard.

The court ruled that when an employer finds a certification insufficient, it must first provide the employee an opportunity submit more information before denying the leave.  If there is doubt about a serious health condition certification, an employer should take additional steps to clear up the questions before denying the exercise of FMLA.

Another case involved a postal service worker who missed over a month of work from an illness and then provided certification from his doctor that he could return to work.  The postal service said that was not sufficient, it wanted more specific information about diagnosis and treatment, and wanted the employee to be examined by the postal medical officer before retuning to work.  The postal worker refused to do either of these things and was terminated.

The Court held that postal service couldn’t impose return-to-work regulations that were more burdensome than what FMLA requires, even if they were the result of a collective bargaining agreement.

An employer cannot impose more stringent return-to-work requirements than those imposed by the FMLA, which only requires that the employee’s own health care provider certify that he can return to work; it does not require specific information on diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, or medications, or that the employee be examined by a company doctor for fitness to work.

If you have any questions regarding FMLA in your workplace, please contact Jack Lipovac or Clint Davis at HR-OneSource (515) 221-1718, lipovacj@hr-onesource.com or davisc@hr-onesource.com.