Employee out of luck after failing to submit FMLA forms
When an employee seeks FMLA leave or ADA accommodations, the critical component for success is the same: communication.
When an employee seeks leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, or when she seeks a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the critical component for success is the same: communication. Whether it is completing the requisite FMLA forms or providing information as part of the ADA’s interactive process, both the employer and employee need to clearly provide information necessary to help the other make decisions. In the recent decision of Watson v. Drexel University, No. 19-1027, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177329 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 2020) (Robreno, J.), the court addressed how an employee’s failure to provide all of the information required by the FMLA led to her legally supported termination.
Custodian ‘hides’ her health condition
Lachelle Watson was a custodian at Drexel when she was diagnosed in May 2016 with a gynecological condition causing her bleeding and fatigue. She told her supervisor, Daryl Carlton, who encouraged her to apply for FMLA leave and to contact Drexel’s human resources department. This was the one and only conversation Watson had with Carlton about her condition. Watson testified that, like many employees, she hid her condition “pretty well.”
Related: 5 steps to reduce FMLA compliance risk
Like many employers, Drexel relied on a third-party to manage its FMLA claims and benefits. As such, Watson applied for FMLA through Guardian Life Insurance. Her initial request was for intermittent FMLA June 2016 through August 2016– which was then extended to October based upon forms completed by Watson’s physician.
When Watson sought to extend her intermittent leave in November, she was advised that her physician’s form had not been returned and her request was denied. Upon learning of this, Watson inquired of Guardian, which told her that they would investigate further. No one from Guardian, however, contacted Watson but, importantly, the court observed that Watson did not inquire further of Guardian or Drexel.
FMLA form not completed
Instead, she requested an extension of her FMLA from December through May 31, 2017. In late January, Guardian contacted Watson to advise that although it had received a completed certification form from her physician, it was incomplete because those sections of the form seeking information as to the length and frequency of the sought-for leave were incomplete. Watson contacted her physician who said that she would resubmit the form—but she never did.
Watson was absent 11 times from November through May, but her FMLA for that period was never approved. To add “insult to injury,” Watson had another physician complete a certification seeking leave from June 2016 through May 2018. Guardian used this form to approve Watson’s FMLA from mid-May 2017 through the end of the month.
Drexel declines to overturn TPA decision
On May 19, 2017, Guardian advised Drexel that Watson’s request for FMLA leave from November through mid-May had been denied due to incomplete certification although “the medical on file does support the entire requested period.” Guardian advised Drexel that it had the option to overturn the denied period or allow it to remain in denied status.
On May 24, 2017, Carlton told Watson that her employment was “on hold” due to unauthorized and excessive absences. Watson responded that her paperwork had been in order and she provided various fax forms to show that her physician had sent forms to Guardian. It appears that her employment remained “on hold” until she underwent surgery in October or early November, when she learned that her health insurance had been cancelled. Watson sued claiming a failure to accommodate under the ADA and interference with her rights under the FMLA. Drexel moved for summary judgment at the close of discovery.
ADA claims rejected
The court first found that Drexel had made a good faith effort to assist Watson in seeking accommodations for her condition, including engaging in the requisite “interactive process.” Specifically, the court found that during her conversation with Carlton in May 2016, again, the one and only time she spoke to anyone at Drexel about her condition (prior to being advised of her unexcused absences), Carlton did what he was supposed to do—advised her of the FMLA and directed her to human resources.
The court observed that “Drexel, through Guardian, denied Watson leave only when she failed to submit the necessary medical documentation supporting her request.” Further, Drexel’s refusal to overturn Guardian’s decision did not evidence “bad faith” as “Watson bore the responsibility for complying with Guardian’s certification requirements for leave approval.”
Similarly, the court rejected Watson’s claim that she had been terminated in violation of the ADA, finding that Watson knew of the FMLA’s medical certification requirements (as she had previously complied with them), knew that she had not received written approval from Guardian for her leaves from November through May and had been given a chance to supply the missing certifications prior to her termination. As such, Drexel’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the termination (violation of the University’s attendance policy) was not pretextual.
Watson receives all FMLA benefits
Finally, the court found that “Drexel did not deny Watson FMLA benefits she was entitled to receive.” The university was “entitled to require [certification forms] for Watson’s requested FMLA benefits and Watson bore the responsibility for complying with the certification requirements.” As such, her FMLA interference claim was also rejected.
It should be noted that the case may have had a different outcome had Watson sought a continuous leave, rather than intermittent. Recall that Guardian advised Drexel that her request for FMLA was medically supported but that the certification form was incomplete as to the length and frequency of leave sought. Employers are not required to accommodate employees by permitting them to be absent at unscheduled and unpredictable times regardless of their medical need. But if Watson had contemporaneously requested a continuous FMLA leave and Drexel knew that it was medically supported, it may have been required to consider providing a non-FMLA unpaid leave. Of course, that would only be the case before discipline was contemplated.
Sid Steinberg is a principal and chair of Post & Schell’s employment and employee relations and labor practice groups. Steinberg’s practice involves virtually all aspects of employee relations, including litigation experience defending employers against employment discrimination in federal and state courts. He can be reached at ssteinberg@postschell.com.
Read more: