Who knows better whether an employee is ready to return to work: the employee or his doctor? When the doctor’s note is clear and unambiguous, that may provide the official diagnosis—no matter what the employee believes.
Attorney Nancy N. Lubrano of the Irvine office of Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP explains a recent case for us.
Employee Was Totally Incapacitated
In February 2007, Willie Holley suffered a work-related knee injury and requested that his employer, Waddington North America, Inc., and WNA Comet West, Inc., grant him a brief medical leave, which it did.
The employer also granted his additional requests to extend his medical leave from March 2007 to January 2008. Finally, in January 2008, Holley was released to return to work with certain restrictions.
The employer offered Holley three positions that accommodated his restrictions, but none was his former position. He reluctantly agreed to a transitional position but expressed his desire to resume working in his former position. Still, he didn’t return to work.
When Holley failed to return to work, the employer again offered him the three transitional positions, none of which he accepted. Holley then obtained a doctor’s note reducing his restrictions to “self-limiting” in an apparent effort to enable him to resume his prior job duties the next day.
Yet he didn’t report to work the next day. Instead, on February 25, 2008, he submitted a new doctor’s note stating that he was “totally incapacitated” until April 21. On April 2, the employer terminated his employment and invited him to apply for any open position when he was released to return to work. He wasn’t released until November 2008, and he never applied for reemployment.
Following his termination, Holley filed a complaint against the employer alleging violations of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), disability discrimination, and related claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as well as wrongful termination. At the employer’s request, the court threw out the case without a trial. Holley appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Confused about an important leave-related issue? Don’t be.
CFRA Requirements
Under the CFRA, an eligible employee is entitled to unpaid medical leave of up to 12 workweeks during a 12-month period when he suffers from a serious health condition that makes him unable to perform at least one essential job function.
Additionally, the employee is guaranteed that upon release to return to work, he will be reinstated to the same or a comparable position. Such a request for leave or actual leave may not result in loss of job security or any other adverse employment action.
Because Holley didn’t return to work after he exhausted his CFRA leave, his claims that the employer violated the law failed. Further, the employer granted an additional 11 months of leave. In fact, Holley wasn’t terminated until almost a year after his initial CFRA leave expired. Thus, any claim of retaliation related to that leave failed because his termination was too remote from the date his leave expired.
Additional Requirements Under FEHA
Under FEHA, an employer must make a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s known physical or mental disability. It must also engage in the interactive process with the employee to determine an effective reasonable accommodation when he requests one.
When an employee asserts that an employer violated those
requirements, he must show that with or without the accommodation he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position held or desired.
Holley couldn’t meet his burden because he submitted a doctor’s note stating that he was “totally incapacitated.” Thus, he was unable to work with or without a reasonable accommodation. The employer also had reasonably accommodated a leave of absence of 14 months in addition to offering Holley three options for a transitional assignment on two separate occasions.
For the conclusion of the case, tune in tomorrow.
Download your free copy of Compliance Guide to the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act today!
Seems like the employer bent over backwards here–and yet still ended up having to deal with two rounds of litigation.Frustrating.
Seems like the employer bent over backwards here–and yet still ended up having to deal with two rounds of litigation.Frustrating.