Labor & Employment Department
Scenario
Employee is out for two days and brings in a doctor's note that simply states patient was ill and unable to work two days. Coincidentally, the employee had previously scheduled vacation days for Friday and Monday, meaning she had a six day absence, with four of those work days. The employer questions the legitimacy of the employee's time off and tells her so when she returns to work.
The employee did not request Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) time off and the employer did not provide her with paperwork to fill out for such leave. The employee's manager was also unhappy with the manner in which the employee let the manager know that she was out sick (she taped the doctor's note to the manager's door), and as a result the employee was terminated. The employee sued.
In a major FMLA decision in early July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware) held that a short absence with conflicting medical evidence and employee testimony may establish a period of protected FMLA leave - thereby barring any discrimination or discipline based on the absence. This case ruled that the employee's description of her illness, combined with "some medical evidence," can be sufficient to establish a protected absence due to a "serious health condition," as required under the FMLA.
The decision will require employers covered by the FMLA (generally, those with 50 or more employees within 75 miles of the employee's worksite) to exercise more caution than ever when dealing with an employee who claims he or she has been out sick, but fails to provide medical certification for the full absence.
But, did the employee have the protection of the FMLA, which would prohibit her termination?
The definition of a "serious health condition" under the FMLA requires a three-day minimum loss of work. Here, the employee's physician certified only two sick days. However, the employee stated that she was sick on her vacation days as well.
On the critical issue of whether the employee must establish thorough medical evidence of the need for three or more days of leave, the Court noted that federal regulations are unclear. Courts in other parts of the country have already ruled that the employee's own testimony combined with some medical evidence is enough to show that the absence was due to a "serious health condition" and therefore the employee is protected by the FMLA's prohibition on disciplinary action or retaliation based on the leave of absence. The decision made clear that the employee's self-diagnosis is not enough - there must be some medical documentation.
So what does this mean for employers?
The decision provides helpful guidance to employers on considering evidence beyond doctor's notes, but still leaves many questions unanswered, including the key issue of how much "medical evidence" is needed in combination with the employee's own claims. The answers likely will be fleshed out in the courts, as they apply this new standard. In the meantime, employers should consider the following steps in light of the decision: