Mauder v. Metropolitan Transit Authority
11 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 628, 446 F.3d 574, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9306 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To be entitled to leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for a serious health condition, an employee must demonstrate that the condition resulted in an "incapacity," meaning an inability to work, not merely discomfort or inconvenience at the workplace. Furthermore, an employee's failure to provide adequate medical information requested by the employer is a sufficient basis for the employer to deny the leave request.
Facts:
- Kenneth Mauder worked as a Support Center Analyst for the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Metro).
- A new supervisor, Watkins, implemented stricter workplace policies, including scheduled break times and attendance standards.
- Mauder was diagnosed with Type II diabetes and was prescribed Metaformin, a medication that caused the side effect of uncontrollable diarrhea.
- Due to this side effect, Mauder required unscheduled restroom breaks, causing him to be tardy and frequently away from his desk in violation of the new policies.
- Mauder informed his supervisor of his condition with a doctor's note and requested a flexible break schedule, but the request was denied.
- When Metro asked Mauder for more detailed medical information to support his request, Mauder refused to provide it.
- Mauder received multiple verbal warnings, a written reprimand, and was placed on a one-month corrective action plan for his tardiness and unavailability.
- Metro terminated Mauder's employment at the end of the corrective action plan period for failing to improve his performance.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 4, 2002, during his corrective action period, Mauder submitted a formal FMLA leave request to Metro's Human Resources Department.
- Mauder filed a lawsuit against Metro in federal district court, alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the FMLA.
- In response to Metro's motion for summary judgment, Mauder expressly abandoned his ADA claims.
- The district court granted Metro's motion for summary judgment on the FMLA claims.
- Mauder, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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 employee's need for frequent, unscheduled restroom breaks due to a medication's side effect constitute an "incapacity" under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that entitles the employee to intermittent leave?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart
No. An employee's need for frequent, unscheduled restroom breaks does not constitute an incapacity under the FMLA because the condition did not render the employee unable to physically attend work or perform their job functions. The FMLA requires a showing of 'incapacity,' which means an inability to work, not merely experiencing symptoms that are inconvenient. The record shows that Mauder was never absent from work due to his condition; he was physically present and able to work. This distinguishes his situation from cases where a condition is so debilitating that an employee cannot physically report to their job. Additionally, Mauder's claim fails because he did not cooperate with Metro's statutorily permissible request for more medical information to certify his need for leave. On the separate retaliation claim, the court found no causal link between Mauder's FMLA request and his termination, as Metro's progressive disciplinary process was already underway due to legitimate, documented performance issues long before he formally requested FMLA leave.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the definition of "incapacity" under the FMLA, establishing that an employee must be unable to perform their job or be physically present at work to qualify for leave. It narrows the scope of protection by distinguishing between conditions that are merely inconvenient or disruptive at work and those that genuinely prevent an employee from working. The ruling also reinforces the FMLA as a cooperative process, placing a burden on the employee to provide necessary medical certification when requested. This precedent makes it more difficult for employees to succeed on FMLA claims for intermittent leave related to chronic conditions that do not result in outright absence from the workplace.
