Photo: A. Fielding
Alleging that a supervisor exacerbated an employee’s pre-existing health condition is not a valid theory of liability under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
The issue of serious health conditions covered by the FMLA causes human resources professionals some confusion. But as the 7th Circuit’s decision in Breneisen v. Motorola, Inc. makes clear, what or who caused the condition is not an issue under the FMLA.
“The district court … found no basis in the FMLA that would enable [the employee] to recover on his theory, even if the causal link he sought to establish proved to be true,” the appeals court said. “[T]he FMLA does not address the cause of an employee’s injury.”
James P. Breneisen, Jr., worked in various Motorola facilities from 1994 to 2003. In January 2001, he took FMLA leave for treatment of gastroesophageal reflux, and returned after 12 weeks. He worked eight days and took leave again, for esophageal surgery, in April 2001.
He returned in September 2001, to find the company had eliminated his previous job as a process analyst. He was reassigned to be a technician assistant with the same pay and benefits, but he considered it a demotion. He took another job as a contracts coordinator, but began having difficulty with his boss in that department, and in February 2002, took another leave for surgery to remove his esophagus. He said his supervisor’s behavior exacerbated his condition. He did not return to Motorola after that surgery.
Later in 2002, he and several other employees sued Motorola alleging discrimination and retaliation under FMLA. Breniesen was terminated in April 2003.
He made three allegations of FMLA violations: (1) failure to reinstate him to an equivalent position when he returned to work in April 2001; (2) discrimination and retaliation when he returned to work; and (3) retaliation by way of harassment by his supervisor.
On remand after a 7th Circuit ruling in 2008, Breneisen waived his claims in charges (1) and (2), leaving only his claim for damages as a result of discriminatory and retaliatory conduct in (3), the one in which he alleged that his esophagectomy was necessary because his supervisor caused him stress, high blood pressure and stomach reflux, all of which exacerbated his pre-existing medical condition.
That charge would not survive.
Even if Breneisen could prove the link between the alleged harassment and the worsening of his medical condition, the appeals court said, “the cause of an injury is irrelevant under the FMLA.”
Additionally, even had the cause of Breneisen’s injury been relevant to an FMLA claim, the 7th Circuit found that Motorola’s alleged exacerbating conduct occurred after his second, unprotected leave. Breneisen’s first leave, starting in January 2001, exhausted his FMLA entitlement. His second leave “appears to have been a courtesy extended to a long-standing employee,” the court said.
“Although his second leave may have been ‘approved,’” the appeals court said, “an employer’s approval of extra leave time has no bearing on the established parameters of taking leave pursuant to the FMLA. Since the retaliatory conduct which Breneisen alleges occurred happened when he was no longer subject to the FMLA’s clearly defined protections, he is not entitled to recovery for an FMLA violation.”
The 7th Circuit also found a more insidious ramification of applying an exacerbation theory to cases involving the FMLA.
“Since stress can adversely affect many common ailments from which physically infirm employees suffer, granting relief on this basis would contravene the straightforward premise of the FMLA — to protect employees from adverse actions by their employers during finite periods when short-term personal or family medical needs require it,” the court said.