Part and Parcel, UPS Worker Delivers Empty FMLA Claim

A federal appeals court recently upheld dismissal of an employee’s claim that his employer interfered with his right to take FMLA leave, holding that the worker was not entitled to an indefinite, medically-unsupported leave of absence.

Facts

Ryan Walker commenced working for UPS in 1996. In late 2016, UPS demoted Ryan from his business manager role and transferred him to another nearby facility. Afterward, Walker failed to show up for work, sought FMLA leave, and applied for short-term disability benefits (STD). Responding to his request, Aetna (UPS’s third-party benefits administrator) requested that Walker verify his condition and provide supporting medical documentation. After multiple requests for that information, Walker finally submitted a one-page doctor’s note, which failed to identify a date of onset, provide any information about the nature of his illness, or indicate an inability to perform one or more of his essential job duties. Due to his noncompliance, Walker’s STD claim and FMLA leave request were both denied. 

By that point, and well into 2017, Walker had already been on leave for six weeks. Accordingly, UPS requested that he return to work. However, despite UPS’s request, Walker stayed home another five weeks. After having been absent for 11 weeks, Walker sought additional medical leave, but again never submitted any supporting medical documentation. Eight weeks later, at which point Walker had been away for some five months, UPS again asked Walker to provide supporting medical documentation and warned him that his failure to do so would result in his termination. Yet, Walker refused those repeated requests, leading UPS to fire him. 

Legal Analysis

Following his termination, Walker filed suit against UPS in federal court, claiming that UPS had interfered with his right to take FMLA leave. The court dismissed Walker’s claim without a trial, on the basis that Walker had failed to submit proper documentation to substantiate his need for FMLA leave. The court’s decision was upheld on appeal.

Indeed, the FMLA provides that an eligible employee is entitled to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave due to a “serious health condition,” such as a mental or physical illness, impairment, or injury. However, in order to qualify for FMLA leave, an employee must provide a complete and sufficient medical certification, which must include the health care provider’s contact information and credentials, as well as identify the approximate commencement date, condition, duration, and clinical description of the employee’s health condition. If the employee fails to provide a valid certification, the employer may lawfully deny the employee’s leave request. 

Here, because Walker failed to meet this fundamental requirement – provide his employer with a completed medical certification – his FMLA claim had no merit, and he lost his case (notwithstanding the fact that he received a five-month leave of absence anyway). 

The Takeaway

For HR professionals and employment lawyers alike, the FMLA can be complex, cumbersome, and confusing, with compliance efforts frequently at odds with obstinate employees and conflicting court decisions. However, despite the ever-present risk of a lawsuit, HR should remain vigilant and require employees to comply with the rules. And, that means, as shown here, demand that an employee seeking FMLA leave provide a completed medical certification from the treating healthcare provider. The USDOL even provides the recommended certification form here:  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla/forms 

As this case reminds us, when an employee seeks an open-ended leave, HR should ask for additional supporting documentation, particularly when the details are anything but clear. By pushing back on vague certifications and inconsistent and medically unsupported leave requests, HR, in turn, signals to employees that it takes FMLA administration seriously and will not permit abuse of leave privileges. FMLA compliance is a two-way street, and both the employer and employee bear respective obligations. Just as HR is responsible for understanding and painstakingly applying the rules, the employee must likewise abide by them. And, as demonstrated here, an employer can handily win an FMLA lawsuit by steadfast insistence upon compliance. 

For other vexing FMLA issues, reach out to your favorite HR lawyer – a six-minute call may avoid a six-figure lawsuit.

Chris Butler is an employment lawyer with Christopher Butler LLC in Atlanta and may be reached at 404.295.1985 or cbutlerlaw@outlook.com.