Marchisheck v. San Mateo County
99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9803, 199 F.3d 1068, 99 Daily Journal DAR 12631 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), an employee is entitled to leave to care for a child with a 'serious health condition' only if the condition meets specific regulatory criteria for 'continuing treatment by a health care provider' resulting in incapacity, and the employee's leave is for active participation in, or facilitation of, that ongoing medical treatment rather than solely for safety or relocation.
Facts:
- Fe Marchisheck was employed as a senior medical technologist at San Mateo County General Hospital and was raising her 14-year-old son, Shaun, alone.
- Shaun had a history of counseling for mild depression and behavioral problems from 1991 to 1995, but his counselors did not diagnose a mental disorder requiring continued therapy, nor did they refer him for further treatment after June and August 1995 sessions.
- On August 5, 1995, Shaun was assaulted by acquaintances, sustaining a nasal contusion, puncture burns, abrasions, and a subconjunctival hemorrhage; he was treated once at an emergency room on August 6 with instructions for home care.
- Concerned for Shaun's safety, Marchisheck decided to move him to the Philippines to live with her brother and, on August 10, requested five weeks of vacation leave starting August 18, which her supervisor George Ford denied due to staffing issues.
- Despite being warned not to leave without approval, Marchisheck obtained a letter from Dr. Solomon, whom she had not met and who had not treated Shaun, vaguely stating Shaun needed to move to the Philippines for 'continued treatment' and a 'family medical crisis,' though Marchisheck had no plans for Shaun to receive medical care there.
- On August 17, 1995, Marchisheck's leave request was again denied, but she rejected alternative leave options and took Shaun to the Philippines that night.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 7, 1995, Fe Marchisheck was sent a letter by San Mateo County (Defendant) expressing intent to terminate her employment for insubordination and absence without leave, offering an opportunity to respond.
- Following a meeting on September 21, 1995, where Marchisheck was represented by a union, a document was issued stating the disciplinary action against her was proper.
- Defendant fired Marchisheck by letter on September 22, 1995, noting her right to appeal her termination within 14 days.
- Marchisheck's union filed a grievance on her behalf on October 3, 1995.
- After the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division investigator concluded there were insufficient grounds for an FMLA violation, the union informed Marchisheck that it would no longer represent her.
- On February 6, 1996, Marchisheck, then represented by counsel, requested an appeal before the Civil Service Commission, which was denied as untimely.
- Marchisheck filed an FMLA/CFRA claim with the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors on March 6, 1996, which requested medical certification for Shaun's condition, but Marchisheck never returned the form.
- On May 24, 1996, the Board of Commissioners rejected Marchisheck's claim.
- On November 26, 1996, Marchisheck filed a complaint in federal district court, alleging FMLA, CFRA, and wrongful termination claims.
- The district court granted Defendant San Mateo County's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Shaun did not have a "serious medical condition" entitling Marchisheck to FMLA/CFRA protections.
- Marchisheck (Appellant) brought a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (this court).
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 employee qualify for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or California Family Rights Act (CFRA) leave to "care for" a child if the child's condition does not meet the statutory and regulatory definition of a "serious health condition" requiring continuing treatment by a healthcare provider resulting in incapacity, and the employee's purpose in taking leave is for the child's safety and relocation rather than participation in ongoing medical treatment?
Opinions:
Majority - Graber, Circuit Judge
No, an employee does not qualify for FMLA or CFRA leave to "care for" a child if the child's condition does not meet the statutory definition of a "serious health condition" involving continuing treatment by a healthcare provider resulting in incapacity, and the employee's purpose for leave is for the child's safety and relocation rather than active participation in ongoing medical treatment. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, finding that Shaun's conditions, individually or combined, did not meet the FMLA's definition of a "serious health condition." Shaun's physical injuries from the assault did not qualify because, despite a possible period of incapacity, he received only one formal treatment, and subsequent brief interactions with counselors did not constitute "treatment" for those specific physical injuries under 29 C.F.R. § 825.114(a)(2)(i)(A). His psychological condition did not qualify as a "chronic serious health condition" under 29 C.F.R. § 825.114(a)(2)(iii) because there was no evidence of incapacity (inability to perform regular daily activities) due to his behavioral problems. The argument for a "combined condition" failed because there was no evidence that Shaun's physical and psychological symptoms combined to incapacitate him or required treatment for a combined condition. Furthermore, even if a serious health condition existed, Marchisheck's leave did not constitute "caring for" Shaun as defined by FMLA regulations (29 C.F.R. § 825.116(a)). Her purpose was to ensure Shaun's safety by relocating him, not to facilitate or participate in ongoing medical or psychological treatment, as she had no plans for him to receive treatment in the Philippines where such services were unavailable. The court rejected estoppel and waiver arguments, finding Dr. Solomon's letter was not a proper medical certification and the County had provided appropriate FMLA forms once a claim was explicitly made.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the strict interpretation of "serious health condition" and "care for" under the FMLA and CFRA. It establishes that an employee's genuine concern for a child's safety, while laudable, does not automatically justify FMLA leave unless directly tied to a qualifying medical condition requiring ongoing treatment. The ruling underscores that medical certifications must be specific and adhere to statutory criteria, preventing employers from being bound by vague or insufficient documentation. This decision limits the scope of FMLA leave to situations where the employee's absence directly facilitates the child's medical or psychological recovery through active participation in recognized treatment protocols, rather than general welfare or relocation purposes.
