Peter v. Lincoln Technical Institute, Inc.
2002 WL 31939087, 255 F. Supp. 2d 417 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), an employee's delay in submitting required medical certification may be excused if the delay was impracticable despite the employee's diligent, good-faith efforts. An employer interferes with an employee's FMLA rights if it fails to provide a specific deadline for submitting certification and fails to warn the employee of the potential consequences, such as termination, for not providing it.
Facts:
- Robin Peter was employed by Lincoln Technical Institute (LTI) from October 1994 through June 1999.
- In early 1999, Peter began suffering from severe sleep apnea, causing her to fall asleep at work multiple times per day.
- On May 28, 1999, Peter's supervisor, Jennie Hunsicker, suggested Peter take time off and consult a physician to determine eligibility for disability leave.
- On June 1, 1999, Peter informed Hunsicker she was taking a month's leave; Hunsicker provided her with medical certification forms, which Peter immediately completed and gave to her physician, Dr. Galgón.
- Dr. Galgón promised to mail the forms that day but failed to do so.
- Between June 1 and June 25, 1999, Hunsicker called Peter multiple times about the missing forms. Each time, Peter reported that she was waiting on her doctor and then called the doctor's office, where staff assured her the forms would be sent.
- On June 25, 1999, LTI management made the decision to terminate Peter's employment for job abandonment.
- Peter received a termination letter on June 28, 1999. The next day, LTI received the completed medical certification, which had been signed by Dr. Galgón on June 25 and stated Peter was unable to work for an 'indefinite' period.
Procedural Posture:
- Robin L. Peter filed suit against Lincoln Technical Institute, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania (a state court of first instance).
- Defendant removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (a federal trial court).
- Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts of Plaintiff's complaint.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), does an employer interfere with an employee's rights by terminating them for failing to submit medical certification when the employee made diligent, good-faith efforts to obtain the certification from a tardy physician, and the employer never provided a specific deadline or warned of termination?
Opinions:
Majority - Van Antwerpen, District Judge
Yes. An employer interferes with an employee's FMLA rights by terminating them under these circumstances. The FMLA regulations excuse an employee's delay in submitting requested medical certification if providing it was not practicable despite the employee's diligent, good-faith efforts. A jury could reasonably find that Peter's repeated calls to her doctor's office after each communication with her employer constituted such an effort. Furthermore, the FMLA imposes notice obligations on the employer, including providing the employee with a specific deadline of at least 15 days and warning of the consequences for failing to provide certification. LTI failed to provide Peter with a specific deadline and never informed her that her job was at risk, which constitutes interference with her FMLA rights and prevents summary judgment for the employer.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the reciprocal obligations between employers and employees under the FMLA's medical certification process. It establishes that an employer's failure to provide clear notice of deadlines and consequences for non-compliance can constitute FMLA interference, shifting the legal risk of such ambiguity onto the employer. The decision also reinforces the equitable 'good-faith effort' exception for employees, protecting them from adverse actions resulting from third-party delays beyond their control. This interpretation encourages clear communication from employers and protects employees who are diligent but face obstacles in fulfilling administrative requirements.
