An employee’s refusal to provide acceptable return-to-work documentation after a medical leave of absence may be viewed as a voluntary resignation, even if that individual has a disability as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This assertion helped the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirm a lower federal court’s summary judgment in favor of a department store chain accused of race and disability discrimination by a former Estee Lauder beauty advisor. The case is Carson v. Belk, Inc., 2013 WL 4750075 (11th Cir., Sept. 5, 2013).
Facts of the Case
Darneese Carson worked as a beauty advisor at the Estee Lauder cosmetics counter in Athens, Ga., for less than a year when she began experiencing stress-related seizures away from the job. As a result of her condition, Carson requested a medical leave of absence from Belk Inc.
A Belk human resources representative mistakenly provided Carson with information and forms specific to the Family and Medical Leave Act. The company later notified Carson during her leave that she, in fact, was ineligible for FMLA because she had been employed by Belk for under the FMLA requisite minimum (12 months).
The initial leave form packet contained medical certification forms including a fitness-for-duty certification and written instructions on how and when to complete the forms. The instructions specified the following:
You will be required to present a fitness-for-duty certificate before returning to work. Your return to work may be delayed until the certification is provided.
It is our policy to return associates to the same position left whenever possible and practical. However, a return to the same or equivalent (substantially identical) position can only be guaranteed to associates who return to work immediately following a qualified FMLA leave and who are not ”key employees.”
When Belk management discovered the error (that Carson, in fact, was ineligible for FMLA leave), HR sent a letter explaining to Carson that: (1) she did not qualify for FMLA leave; (2) a fitness-for-duty certification would be required before returning to work; and (3) there was no guarantee of job reinstatement.
Courts Weigh in
Carson asserted that Belk arbitrarily refused to accept the letter from her doctor that cleared her to return to work, but nothing in the record, the 11th Circuit found, suggested that Belk’s decision to terminate her position was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Athens Division reached the same conclusion, saying that Carson failed to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of her claim that Belk made it “impossible for her or any other person on medical leave due to a disabling condition to be deemed eligible to return to work.”
For the complete article, including employer takeaways, please visit hr.complianceexpert.com.