To this point, federal courts have been reluctant to expand upon the already expansive definition of "serious health condition" contained in the FMLA. However, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago recently ruled that an employee's multiple ailments could be a serious health condition which gave the employee the right to take twelve weeks of FMLA leave, even if none of her individual, unrelated illnesses would rise to the level of a serious health condition.
In Price v. City of Fort Wayne, the plaintiff-employee suffered from a variety of ailments: elevated blood pressure, hyperthyroidism, back pain, severe headaches, sinusitis, an infected cyst, sore throat, swelling throat, coughing, and feelings of stress and depression. Price had visited her doctor numerous times for these conditions in August and September of 1994, and her doctor ordered her to stay home from work for three weeks to recover from her multiple ailments. She was subsequently terminated for excessive absences.
In deciding that the employee's several illnesses should be examined together to determine if they rose to the level of a serious health condition, the court considered the purposes of the FMLA, which primarily was adopted to allow workers time off from work in times of medical need. According to the court, "it is not the disease that receives leave from work; it is the person," and it is irrelevant whether the medical problems take the form of one discrete illness, such as cancer, or several unrelated illnesses that afflict the employee at the same time.
The City also argued that Price did not provide sufficient information to put the City on notice that she would require FMLA leave, because she only requested paid leave. The court rejected this argument as well. As other courts have held, it is the employer's responsibility to designate leave, whether paid or unpaid, as FMLA leave, and the employee does not have to ask for FMLA leave, or even mention the FMLA by name to be protected by the law.
Finally, the City argued that the employee's need for leave was foreseeable, and thus, she failed to provide the required 30-day notice specified in the Department of Labor's FMLA regulations. The court noted that the 30-day notice provision is not absolute, and if the scheduled treatment or absence is to begin in less than 30 days or is not foreseeable, the employee only has to give as much notice as is practicable. Since Price's doctor had stated that she could not delay 30 days before taking the leave, the court held that a jury should determine whether she gave timely notice of her intent to take leave.
Although the FMLA is now almost five years old, many employers (like the City of Fort Wayne) are still having difficulty recognizing potential FMLA scenarios, and they are uncertain of their rights and obligations when dealing with requests for leave involving potential serious health conditions. To resolve some of this confusion, employers should develop a policy or procedure for dealing with leave requests. At a minimum, the policy should:
- centralize decisions regarding leave requests with a single manager or office;
- take advantage of the employer's right to obtain a detailed medical certification from the employee's treating physician and request second and third opinions;
- provide for the exhaustion of paid leave or vacation before unpaid FMLA leave may be taken; and
- require qualifying employees to provide as much notice as possible when the need for leave is foreseeable.
These steps will help employers decide which conditions are really "serious" health conditions, prevent employee abuse of the FMLA's generous leave entitlements, and minimize the potential disruption that FMLA leave requests often cause.