Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
Failure to Allow Opportunity to Cure Certification Creates FMLA Interference Claim: Third Circuit
Practical Law Legal Update 7-616-6953 (Approx. 6 pages)
Failure to Allow Opportunity to Cure Certification Creates FMLA Interference Claim: Third Circuit
by Practical Law Labor & Employment
| Published on 26 Jun 2015 • USA (National/Federal) |
In Hansler v. Lehigh Valley Hospital Network, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a hospital employer's failure to allow an employee to cure an insufficient Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) certification supported an FMLA interference claim. The court rejected the employer's contention that the FMLA certification was invalid because it did not show that the employee had a serious health condition. The court reversed a grant of summary judgment for the employer on the employee's FMLA interference and retaliation claims.
On June 22, 2015, in Hansler v. Lehigh Valley Hospital Network, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in a 2-1 decision that a hospital employer's failure to allow an employee to cure an insufficient FMLA certification supported an FMLA interference claim. The court rejected the employer's contention that the FMLA certification was invalid because it did not show that the employee had a serious health condition. The court reversed a grant of summary judgment for the employer on the employee's FMLA interference and retaliation claims. (No. 14-1772, (3d Cir. June 22, 2015)).
Background
Deborah Hansler worked as a technical partner at Lehigh Valley Health Network (Lehigh Valley). In March 2013, after experiencing symptoms including shortness of breath and vomiting, Hansler submitted to Lehigh Valley an FMLA certification form filled out by her physician requesting that Hansler take intermittent leave "for a probable duration of one month." During March 2013, Hansler missed several days of work. On March 28, 2013, Lehigh Valley terminated her employment due to excessive absenteeism including that month's absences. Hansler pointed out to Lehigh Valley that she had submitted a request for FMLA leave but Lehigh Valley informed her for the first time that her FMLA leave request had been denied. Hansler learned of a March 26, 2013 letter from Lehigh Valley indicating that her FMLA leave request was denied because she did not have a serious health condition qualifying her for FMLA leave. Shortly after her termination, Hansler was diagnosed with diabetes and high blood pressure.
Hansler sued Lehigh Valley in US District Court, alleging that Lehigh Valley had interfered with her FMLA rights and terminated her in retaliation for exercising her FMLA rights. Hansler argued that Lehigh Valley was required to afford her an opportunity to cure her FMLA certification. The district court dismissed Hansler's claims, concluding that Hansler's request for FMLA leave was defective because her FMLA certification indicated a condition with a probable duration of one month when the FMLA requires that a chronic serious health condition last for an extended period of time. According to the district court, since Hansler was not eligible for FMLA leave, Lehigh Valley was not required to allow her to cure her FMLA certification. Hansler appealed.
Outcome
The Third Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Hansler's FMLA claims and remanded the matter. In a 2-1 decision, the court held that:
- Hansler's FMLA certification was insufficient (but not invalid or negative on its face), requiring Lehigh Valley to afford her time to cure the insufficient certification.
- Lehigh Valley's failure to provide Hansler with time to cure her FMLA certification supported an FMLA interference claim (Kauffman v. Fed. Express Corp., 426 F.3d 880, 886-87 (7th Cir. 2005); Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903, 910 (7th Cir. 2008); Sorrell v. Rinker Materials Corp., 395 F.3d 332, 337 (6th Cir. 2005)).
The Third Circuit noted that:
- Any employer violations of the FMLA or its regulations constitute interfering with an employee's FMLA rights and can be the basis for an FMLA interference claim (29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(b)).
- Whenever an FMLA certification is "insufficient" because it is "vague, ambiguous, or non-responsive," an employer must inform the employee and provide the employee with seven days to cure the deficiencies (29 C.F.R. § 825.305(c)).
- A "negative" FMLA certification is not addressed in FMLA regulations but has been identified by courts as a certification that shows, on its face, that the employee does not have a serious medical condition that requires him or her to miss work or to perform his or her job (Stoops v. One Call Communications, Inc., 141 F.3d 309 (7th Cir. 1998); Hoffman v. Professional Med Team, 394 F.3d 414, 416 (6th Cir. 2005); Branham v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., 619 F.3d 563, 572 (6th Cir. 2010); Tayag v. Lahey Clinic Hosp., Inc., 632 F.3d 788, 793 (1st Cir. 2011)).
The Third Circuit found that:
- The FMLA certification submitted by Hansler was not a "negative" certification and instead was "vague, ambiguous, or non-responsive" under 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(c) because it:
- did not indicate that Hansler would not miss any work;
- requested intermittent leave for a duration of one month without specifying whether the one month meant the length of her leave request or the duration of her condition; and
- did not refer to a condition at all.
- Lehigh Valley was not required to know whether Hansler was suffering from a chronic condition but only to provide her the opportunity to clarify the vague, ambiguous or non-responsive FMLA certification.
- Hansler was prejudiced by Lehigh Valley’s failure to give her an opportunity to cure her FMLA certification because she was unable to demonstrate that she was entitled to FMLA leave.
The court also reversed the district court's dismissal of Hansler's FMLA retaliation claim, noting the closeness in time between her request for FMLA leave and Lehigh Valley's termination of her employment.
Judge Roth dissented, noting that the majority was stretching the FMLA to help a sympathetic plaintiff who was diagnosed with a serious illness only weeks after her termination. According to the dissent:
- Hansler's FMLA certification was sufficient because it:
- did not contain any incomplete or insufficient information; and
- accurately reflected that her condition at the time did not qualify her for FMLA leave.
- Lehigh Valley was not obligated to give Hansler an opportunity to cure an FMLA certification that:
- was complete; and
- clearly showed that she was not eligible for FMLA leave.
- The majority's opinion skirted the issue of whether Hansler was eligible for FMLA leave in the first place.
- The FMLA does not provide a grace period for an employee's physician to diagnose a yet-undiscovered medical condition.
Practical Implications
The Third Circuit's decision in Hansler reminds employers that the FMLA requires employers to advise employees if they submit vague, ambiguous or non-responsive certifications. An insufficient certification could involve not merely incomplete or obviously unclear entries on the certification form, but a certification that elicits further questions as to the nature of the employee's condition and how long the condition may persist. Allowing an employee the opportunity to cure an insufficient certification is consistent with the purpose of the FMLA and puts only a modest additional burden on an employer.
This decision illustrates the need for employers to:
- Closely review FMLA certifications and provide employees with an opportunity to cure certifications that do not clearly indicate the nature and duration of the employee's condition.
- Respond in writing to employees' FMLA leave requests.
- Not retaliate against employees who have recently requested FMLA leave.
- Use DOL-compliant FMLA forms when granting or denying employees’ FMLA leave requests. For sample forms, see Standard Documents: