Antonina Lonicki worked as a technician in the sterile processing department of Sutter Health Central in the Sacramento area. Lonicki performed the same work duties at a second job on weekends for Kaiser Permanente.
Over time, Lonicki alleged, her Sutter workload increased and became hectic and stressful. One day, when Sutter unexpectedly changed Lonicki’s shift, she complained and told her supervisor she was too emotionally upset to work that day. The supervisor requested that Lonicki provide a doctor’s excuse for the time off.
Difference of Opinion
Lonicki saw a nurse practitioner that day who gave her a note stating: “Plan to return to work [in one month]. Medical reasons.” At Sutter’s insistence, Lonicki saw a doctor who reported she was fit to return to work with no restrictions. Sutter finally agreed to give Lonicki three weeks off, approving the absence as paid time off rather than medical leave. But Lonicki didn’t return to work as scheduled and was fired.
Lawsuit Over Denial of Medical Leave
Under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), which covers employers with 50 or more employees, eligible employees who have a serious health condition may request leave of up to 12 weeks in a 12-month period. To qualify, the medical condition must make the employee unable to perform their job functions.
Lonicki sued, charging that Sutter violated CFRA by denying her medical leave request. She also claimed that before denying it based on the nurse practitioner’s note, Sutter was required—but failed—to follow procedures for seeking other medical opinions.
Sutter contended Lonicki wasn’t suffering from a serious health condition because she continued performing identical job duties at Kaiser. The company also argued that the nurse practitioner’s note didn’t contain sufficient information to qualify as a medical certification. A trial court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit, and now a California appeals court has upheld the ruling.
Court Restricts Definition of Serious Health Condition
According to the appeals court, the definition of a serious health condition requires that the employee be unable to perform essential job functions generally, rather than for a specific employer. The CFRA doesn’t permit an employee to demand medical leave from one employer, simply because of a stressful working environment, when the employee performs the same essential job functions for another employer. The court concluded that Lonicki wasn’t unable to perform her job duties—as evidenced by her work at Kaiser—but was simply unwilling to do so for Sutter.
Note Insufficient
Also, said the court, the nurse practitioner’s note Lonicki presented didn’t contain enough information to be a medical certification under CFRA. Thus, Sutter wasn’t required to either rely on it or follow CFRA procedures for seeking a second or third medical opinion before denying her leave request.1
How To Survive an Employee Lawsuit: 10 Tips for Success
With lawsuits against employers becoming ever more common—and jury verdicts skyrocketing—your risk of getting sued has increased dramatically even if you’ve done all the right things. Learn how to protect yourself with our free White Paper, How To Survive an Employee Lawsuit: 10 Tips for Success.
Practical Impact and Certification Requirements
With this ruling, it will be more difficult for employees to claim entitlement to family and medical leave merely because of routine job stress. Plus, if an employee continues working at a second job with similar duties, it will be harder for that person to qualify for leave based on a serious medical condition.
The case also highlights CFRA’s medical certification requirements. A medical certification is sufficient if it includes: the date the serious health condition began; the condition’s probable duration; and a statement that, because of the condition, the employee cannot perform their position’s functions.
If a certification contains this information, and its validity isn’t in doubt, you must accept it. If you doubt a certification’s validity, you can require that the employee obtain a second opinion, at your expense, from a health care provider you designate or approve, but note that you cannot employ this provider. And, you can require a third opinion—which will be final and binding—if the second differs from the first.
(1) Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central, Calif. Court of Appeal No. C039617, 2004