The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (and its state counterpart, the California Family Rights Act) imposes a variety of restrictions on how an employer can handle an employee’s medical leave, including a requirement that employers accept an employee’s healthcare provider’s certification about his or her fitness to return to work.
The California Court of Appeals, however, has recently ruled that this restriction is not absolute. Today and tomorrow, we’ll take a look at this case—and what it means for your workplace.
Investigator Contests Medical Reevaluation
Susan White was a senior district attorney investigator with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (DA). Her position’s essential functions included personally serving arrest warrants, making arrests, interrogating suspects, and booking prisoners.
Beginning in 2009, White began experiencing emotional difficulties. She was observed acting erratically in the workplace, with very high emotional highs and very low lows. Besides making poor tactical decisions, she cried, was anxious, and had mood swings on the job. In a 2010 meeting with her supervisor, White admitted that her coworkers had valid reasons for distrusting her and referred to herself as a “whack job.”
On April 26, 2011, White told her supervisor she would be undergoing treatment for which she might need to take time off. She eventually sought FMLA leave, and her psychiatrist certified her need. On August 18, the psychiatrist wrote to the employer that White would be able to return to work and perform her essential job functions on September 7.
Leaves: One of the trickiest parts of your job… and one with very high stakes. Don’t miss our 1-day master class on leaves, specifically for HR professionals in California. Pick your choice of two convenient dates and locations. Learn more!
On September 6, the DA informed White that she would be placed on paid administrative leave and reassigned to her home effective September 7. She was ordered, under county civil service rules, to report for a medical reevaluation in January 2012 and informed that failing to appear may be cause for discipline.
The order was based on White’s erratic conduct before her FMLA leave, not on anything that occurred while she was on leave or after her return from leave.
White filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction preventing the DA from requiring her to appear for a medical reevaluation or disciplining her for failing to appear. The trial court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the DA from requiring a medical reevaluation of White based on her conduct before September 7, 2011, or charging her with insubordination for not submitting to a reevaluation. The DA appealed.
Tomorrow, what the appeals court decided.
Download your copy of Notice Requirements for CFRA and FMLA: California Labor Laws today!
Important case–employers are often understandably reluctant to ask for additional evaluation for fear of violating the FMLA/CFRA.