The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in Ridings v. Riverside Medical Center that an employer may terminate the employment of an employee who fails to provide medical certification to her employer to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The Appeals Court affirmed the holding of the District Court for the Central District of Illinois, which had granted summary judgment for the employer on all Plaintiff’s claims of interference and retaliation under the FMLA.
FACTS UNDERLYING PLAINTIFF’S FMLA CLAIM
Janet Ridings (“Ridings”) had been employed as a “Knowledge Manager” for the defendant, Riverside Medical Center (“Riverside”). In January 2003, Ridings left work for three weeks to have her thyroid removed to treat Graves Disease. Before her leave, Ridings completed an FMLA leave application and submitted a medical certification form to her doctor as required by her employer under the FMLA regulations. When she returned to work, Ridings worked approximately four hours each day at Riverside’s offices, and gradually increased her hours until she was working nearly a full day. Later, she reduced her hours so that she did not work beyond 4:30 due to fatigue associated with her condition.
In January and February 2004, Ridings’ supervisor requested that Ridings begin working a full eight-hour day on the premises. Ridings did not adjust her work schedule after either request. As a result, Ridings’ supervisor gave Ridings a “corrective action report” (“CAR”) regarding her work schedule which stated that her attendance was unsatisfactory and that she must begin working an eight-hour day immediately. Ridings signed the CAR, but noted on the form that Riverside failed to answer her question about what medical documentation she should supply to continue taking leave. She provided a doctor’s note on the same day which stated she could not work an eight-hour day because of a medical condition until further notice.
Ridings’ supervisor responded to the doctor’s note by requesting that she fill out FMLA paperwork to take leave. He provided her an FMLA leave application to complete and an FMLA medical certification form for her physician to complete. When Ridings did not return the paperwork within fifteen days, her supervisor gave her another CAR which again requested the FMLA paperwork. Subsequently, Riverside gave Ridings a third CAR which provided that she would be suspended for three days and that her employment may be terminated if she did not return the FMLA paperwork. When Ridings returned to work without the paperwork, her employment was terminated. Ridings brought a lawsuit against Riverside in which she alleged that Riverside had interfered with her FMLA rights and retaliated against her in violation of the FMLA.
FMLA INTERFERENCE CLAIM
The Court began by giving background on FMLA interference claims. The Court provided that an FMLA interference claim arises when an employer interferes with an employee’s attempt to exercise rights under the FMLA. The Court articulated five requirements for an employee to prevail on an FMLA interference claim. To show that an employer deprived the employee of an FMLA entitlement, the employee must establish the following elements: (1) the employee was eligible for the FMLA’s protections; (2) the employer was covered by the FMLA; (3) the employee was entitled to leave under the FMLA; (4) the employee provided sufficient notice of his or her intent to take leave; and (5) the employer denied the employee FMLA benefits to which she or he was entitled.
In this case, the parties did not dispute that Ridings established the first two elements of the claim: Ridings was eligible for FMLA protection, and Riverside was covered by the FMLA. The case turned instead on whether Ridings was required to submit a medical certification from her health care provider in order to obtain the leave. Pursuant to the FMLA, an employer may require that a request for leave due to a serious health condition be supported by certification issued by the health care provider of the employer. Here, Ridings provided only a doctor’s note which stated that she could not work a full day due to a medical condition.
The Court held that Ridings had failed to meet her obligations under the FMLA and, therefore, Riverside did not unlawfully deny her FMLA benefits. It agreed with Riverside’s argument that it was entitled to ask Ridings for medical certification to support her request for leave, and that Ridings failed to provide the medical certification. The Court noted evidence that Riverside had given Ridings two FMLA forms: a “Request for Leave of Absence” form and a “Medical Certification for Leave of Absence” form. It also noted Riverside’s written policy for FMLA leave, which explained to the employee its legal obligations to provide notice, and indicated to the employee that Riverside used a particular medical certification form.
FMLA RETALIATION CLAIM
The Court also granted summary judgment to Riverside on Ridings’ claim that Riverside retaliated against her in violation of the FMLA. The FMLA provides an employer may not “discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any individual for opposing any practice made unlawful” by the FMLA. A plaintiff may assert a charge of retaliation pursuant to the FMLA by either direct or indirect methods of proof. Under the direct method, the plaintiff must present evidence that her employer took a materially adverse action against her on account of her protected activity.
The Court rejected Ridings assertion that Riverside took a materially adverse action when it terminated her for her protected activity, which she asserted was working a reduced schedule. Ridings contended that her supervisor did not begin objecting to her shortened schedule until after she finished a large project. She used this as evidence that there was no “business justification” for needing her to work an eight-hour day or to work her full schedule on the premises. In response, the Court provided, “Riverside was entitled to ask Ridings to work a full schedule on the premises because she was a full-time employee; an employee cannot simply inform the employer when and from where she would like to work.” Moreover, the Court found that Riverside could properly require Ridings to substantiate her continued need for a reduced schedule.
The Court found Riverside’s disciplinary action taken against Ridings was authorized by law and by Riverside’s own policies. The Court cited to an FMLA regulation which provides that an employee’s leave is not an FMLA leave when the employee never produces the certification. The court reasoned Riverside’s medical leave policy provided adequate notice to Ridings of the consequences of her actions because it explained to the employee that failure to provide medical certification could result in denial of leave until it is provided. Moreover, Riverside’s policy on attendance stated, “Excessive absenteeism that is not considered a serious health condition under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) will lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.” Pursuant to the regulation and Riverside’s policy, the Court reasoned that Riverside could properly terminate Ridings’ position. In addition, the Court credited Riverside’s contention that it could have terminated Ridings for insubordination.
IMPORTANT EMPLOYER OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE FMLA
Despite finding in favor of Riverside in this case, the Court admonished Riverside for some of its interactions with Ridings. In expressing its disapproval, the Court provided sound advice to employers who respond to FMLA requests by their employees. First, the Court noted that Riverside should have responsively answered Ridings questions about the required FMLA medical documentation when she asked questions, rather than “fostering a climate of secrecy regarding its expectations of Ridings.” On these facts, however, the Court found that Riverside’s failure to answer Ridings’ request for more information did not rise to the level of interference. Second, the Court disapproved of Riverside’s use of the term “intermittent” leave when it sought FMLA paperwork from Ridings, because it could have misled Ridings to believe that she could not take reduced schedule leave. It noted that it is the employer’s responsibility to determine the applicability of the FMLA. However, here, the Court found that Ridings failure to turn in the FMLA forms was due to entirely unrelated reasons. The lesson from the Court’s warning is that employers must be as clear as possible when explaining the FMLA and its obligations to its employees. An employer must provide its employees with notice of their rights, and must responsively and accurately answer employees’ questions. Also, the employer personnel policies should define possible grounds for termination and a finding of insubordination to include the failure of an employee to complete paperwork necessary for the employer to administer its benefits programs or run its business.