Phinizy v. Pharmacare
569 F. Supp. 2d 512, 2008 WL 2914792, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56407 (2008)
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 not entitled to protection for interference or retaliation claims without first demonstrating a qualifying 'serious health condition' requiring periodic medical treatment, or that they provided the employer with notice reasonably adequate to indicate the need for FMLA-qualifying leave.
Facts:
- Rosemary Phinizy was employed by Pharmacare as a pharmacy technician and was subject to its attendance policies.
- Beginning in 1999, Phinizy experienced recurring bouts of bronchitis, which caused periodic work absences that never exceeded three consecutive days.
- Over the two years covered by her complaint, Phinizy sought medical treatment for her bronchitis on one occasion and received one prescription over the telephone.
- On several occasions prior to the events in question, Phinizy had inquired about FMLA leave for various reasons but had never formally applied for or taken it.
- On December 6, 2005, Phinizy called out of work, leaving a message with a security guard that she would not be in because she had to take her mother to the emergency room; her mother was subsequently hospitalized for three days.
- Phinizy had been formally counseled multiple times for attendance violations and received a "Job in Jeopardy" designation on January 5, 2006.
- On January 26, 2006, after clocking in for her shift, Phinizy left her workstation without clocking out to move her car from an unauthorized parking spot.
- Upon reviewing surveillance video and time records, Pharmacare managers terminated Phinizy's employment for 'theft of company time.'
Procedural Posture:
- Rosemary Phinizy filed a two-count complaint against Pharmacare in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging FMLA interference and retaliation.
- Following the close of discovery, Pharmacare filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
- A U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation advising that Pharmacare's motion be granted.
- Phinizy filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's report.
- The District Court conducted a de novo review of the record and the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to rule on the motion.
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 FMLA, is an employee entitled to proceed with claims for interference and retaliation where her medical condition involved only one doctor's visit and one telephonic prescription over two years, and where her notice for a family emergency consisted of a single message that she was taking her mother to the emergency room?
Opinions:
Majority - Cercone, District Judge
No. An employee is not entitled to proceed with FMLA claims without establishing a qualifying medical condition or providing adequate notice. Phinizy's bronchitis does not qualify as a 'chronic serious health condition' under FMLA regulations because her extremely limited contact with healthcare professionals—one visit and one phone call over two years—falls short of the required 'periodic visits for treatment.' This type of ailment is a short-term condition that Congress did not intend FMLA to cover. Regarding her absence to care for her mother, her notice was insufficient; a single message to a security guard about taking her mother to the emergency room was not reasonably adequate to apprise Pharmacare of a potential FMLA-qualifying event. An employer is not required to be 'clairvoyant.' Because Phinizy failed to establish she was entitled to FMLA leave for either situation, her interference claim fails. Consequently, her retaliation claim also fails, as a prima facie case requires the employee to have actually taken FMLA leave, which she did not.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary thresholds for FMLA claims concerning 'chronic serious health conditions' and employee notice requirements. By emphasizing the need for 'periodic' medical treatment, the court makes it more difficult for employees to claim FMLA protection for common, episodic illnesses that do not require ongoing medical supervision. Furthermore, the ruling reinforces that the burden is on the employee to provide sufficient, substantive information to trigger an employer's FMLA obligations, particularly for unforeseeable leave. This strengthens an employer's ability to win summary judgment when an employee's FMLA eligibility or notice is facially deficient.
