Deborah Hansler v. Lehigh Valley Hospital Network
2015 WL 4925819, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14581, 798 F.3d 149 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer violates the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by failing to advise an employee of deficiencies in a medical certification and provide a 7-day cure period before denying leave, provided the certification is merely 'incomplete' or 'insufficient' rather than 'negative on its face' (meaning it affirmatively states the employee does not need leave).
Facts:
- Lehigh Valley Health Network hired Deborah Hansler in 2011 as a technical partner.
- In early March 2013, Hansler began experiencing unexplained symptoms including shortness of breath, nausea, and vomiting.
- On March 13, 2013, Hansler's physician completed a medical certification form requesting intermittent leave two times weekly for approximately one month, which Hansler submitted to Lehigh Valley as a formal request for FMLA leave.
- Hansler subsequently missed work on March 13, 14, 23, 24, and 25 due to her condition.
- On March 28, Lehigh Valley terminated Hansler's employment, citing excessive absences, including the five days she took off, without first seeking any clarification about her medical certification.
- Lehigh Valley informed Hansler, for the first time, that her request for FMLA leave had been denied.
- Hansler later learned she had been diagnosed with diabetes and high blood pressure in early April 2013, after her dismissal.
Procedural Posture:
- Deborah Hansler sued Lehigh Valley Health Network in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the FMLA for interference with her rights and retaliation for seeking leave.
- Lehigh Valley Health Network filed a motion to dismiss Hansler's complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The District Court granted Lehigh Valley's motion to dismiss, concluding that Hansler's medical certification was 'invalid' and 'negative on its face,' thus not entitling her to FMLA leave or a cure period.
- Hansler, as the Appellant, appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer violate the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by terminating an employee for absenteeism without first advising the employee of deficiencies in a medical certification submitted for FMLA leave and providing an opportunity to cure those deficiencies, if the certification is merely 'insufficient' rather than 'negative on its face'?
Opinions:
Majority - Fuentes, Circuit Judge
Yes, an employer violates the Family Medical Leave Act by terminating an employee for absenteeism without first advising the employee of deficiencies in a medical certification submitted for FMLA leave and providing an opportunity to cure those deficiencies, as long as the certification is 'insufficient' or 'incomplete' and not 'negative on its face.' The Court held that Hansler's medical certification, which requested intermittent leave for a probable duration of one month, was not 'negative on its face' because it did not affirmatively state that she would not miss work or did not have a serious health condition preventing her from performing her job functions. Instead, the certification was 'vague, ambiguous, or non-responsive' regarding whether the 'probable duration of one month' referred to the leave or the medical condition, rendering it 'insufficient' under 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(c). This regulation mandates that employers advise employees of such deficiencies and provide a seven-day cure period. The Court further reasoned that a violation of FMLA regulations, such as failing to provide a cure period, can constitute interference with FMLA rights if the employee is prejudiced, as Hansler alleged she was by being unable to provide a full diagnosis. The Court also found that Hansler's retaliation claim should not be dismissed at this stage because the underlying premise that her leave request was invalid was incorrect.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the crucial distinction between an 'insufficient' or 'incomplete' FMLA medical certification and a 'negative' one, establishing that employers must provide a cure period for the former. It reinforces the protective nature of FMLA regulations, preventing employers from immediately denying leave or terminating employees based on ambiguities in initial certifications. The ruling also extends the Third Circuit's precedent on 'notice interference' (Conoshenti v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co.) to situations involving deficient medical certifications, ensuring employees have a meaningful opportunity to exercise their FMLA rights and are not prejudiced by employer non-compliance. This provides significant protection for employees with emergent or undiagnosed serious health conditions.
