The Dangers Lurking in the Treacherous Waters of FMLA Intermittent Leave Strike Again

26 August 2013 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Navigating the murky waters of intermittent leave under the federal FMLA can be treacherous for employers, particularly when such leave can be so easily abused. A recent case involving an employee who was nearing termination under the employer’s attendance policy provides one such illustration. The employee submitted a medical certification stating that he suffered from depression. The certification also said the employee would have “episodic flare-ups” that would cause him to be intermittently absent from work – a phrase all employers dread seeing on a FMLA medical certification. The medical certification estimated that the employee would have approximately four episodes of such “flare-ups” every six months, resulting in absences of two to five days each.

The employee experienced many more absences than estimated on the medical certification, including more than four “flare-ups” in the very first month. The employer continued to approve these absences as FMLA-covered for a period of time. However, when the absences continued to occur, the employer faxed a letter to the employee’s doctor asking the doctor to reconfirm that the information in the medical certification was correct. The doctor obliged. Based on the updated information from the doctor, the employer terminated the employee on the grounds that the continuing absences were unexcused because they went beyond the estimate in the medical certification. The employee sued and the employer moved for summary judgment.

The employer lost its summary judgment motion because it did not follow the FMLA’s very technical requirements. Those technical regulations provide that an employer can require an employee to submit a new medical certification, called a recertification, when there is a significant change of circumstances, such as the “duration or frequency” of the employee’s absences. In the recertification, the employer can list the employee’s actual pattern of absences and ask that the health care provider state whether such pattern is necessitated by the employee’s serious health condition. The court concluded that the fax sent by the employer directly to the health care provider did not correctly follow this “recertification” procedure, in part because the employer contacted the employee’s doctor directly, instead of notifying the employee that he needed to provide a new medical certification from his health care provider. The court decided that it was improper for the employer to treat the absences as not covered by FMLA because it did not use the proper “recertification” procedure set forth in the regulations.

This case is a reminder that employers should always ensure that their procedures and practices are in compliance with the very technical regulations governing FMLA requests, particularly when it comes to intermittent leave.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
DHS Moves Closer to Launching its H-1B Cap Registration System
16 September 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Be Aware of Potential Legal Restrictions When Implementing a Workplace Weapons Policy
16 September 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
EEO-1 Component 2 Filing Deadline is Just Days Away – But Employers May Be Off the Hook Next Year
16 September 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.