by VigilantEditor
20. June 2011 08:24
An
employer has the right to require a medical certification in order to consider
an employee’s time off as protected under the federal Family and Medical Leave
Act (FMLA), but how far can an employer push those requirements? In a recent
case from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, one employer was allowed to
require absolute compliance with the FMLA regulations before designating the
time off as FMLA-protected.
An
employee sought time off for post-traumatic stress disorder. She gave her
employer a partially completed WH-380E
form, along with a prescription and a letter from her psychiatrist, but the
form failed to identify any medical facts in support of the diagnosis. The doctor
had simply indicated that the employee needed to have 120 days off work for her
condition, without any explanation as to why the employee was unable to perform
her work duties. The employer informed the employee that the WH-380E form was
insufficient and followed the proper time frame giving her an opportunity to
cure the defects. When she refused to do so, the employer designated her time
off as unexcused and eventually terminated her. The employee claimed her
employer’s actions interfered with her FMLA rights and constituted retaliation,
but the court disagreed. The FMLA regulations specifically state that the
medical certification should contain “the appropriate medical facts” to support
the diagnosis. Without that statement in the WH-380 form, the court said her
employer was justified in rejecting her documentation as deficient (Lewis
v. US, 9th Cir, May 2011).