Santiago v. Department of Transportation
50 F. Supp. 3d 136 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee may use intermittent Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave on a reduced schedule basis to be prospectively excused from mandatory overtime where such work is medically certified as a trigger for a serious health condition. An employer's threat of termination for making such a request may constitute unlawful interference under the FMLA's discouragement theory.
Facts:
- Samuel Santiago, an employee of the Connecticut Department of Transportation (DOT), held a position that required considerable mandatory overtime during winter months.
- In 2000, Santiago was diagnosed with severe "cluster headaches," a debilitating condition his doctor, Dr. West, determined was triggered by an excessive work schedule.
- On May 12, 2011, Santiago informed DOT Human Resources Specialist Doreen Rossi in writing about his condition and his doctor's recommendation to limit his work hours to no more than 8 hours per day.
- In a subsequent meeting, Rossi advised Santiago that if a medical certificate confirmed his inability to work overtime, which she termed an essential job function, the DOT would seek a 'less arduous' position for him, but if none was found, he would face separation proceedings or disability retirement.
- On May 17, 2011, Santiago submitted a medical certificate from Dr. West stating he had a "serious health condition" and that working over eight hours per day "precipitates" his headaches.
- Following a meeting on June 2, 2011, where his options were discussed, Santiago indicated he would apply for disability retirement.
- The DOT informed Santiago on June 27, 2011, that its search for a less arduous position was unsuccessful, and on July 1, 2011, he was placed on involuntary leave, forcing him to use his accrued sick and vacation time.
Procedural Posture:
- Samuel Santiago filed suit against several employees of the Connecticut Department of Transportation (DOT) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
- Santiago's complaint alleged FMLA interference (Count One) and FMLA retaliation (Count Two).
- The DOT as an entity was previously dismissed from the suit based on sovereign immunity.
- Both the plaintiff and the remaining individual defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts, while Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the FMLA interference count only.
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 request to be prospectively excused from mandatory overtime, based on a doctor's certification that such work precipitates a serious health condition, constitute a valid request for intermittent leave under the FMLA?
Opinions:
Majority - Arterton, J.
Yes. An employee may use FMLA leave intermittently or on a reduced schedule when medically necessary, which includes taking leave prospectively to avoid the onset of a serious health condition. The FMLA does not require an employee to be actively incapacitated to qualify for such leave; prophylactic leave to avoid a known medical trigger is permissible. The court rejected the employer's argument that FMLA leave is only available when an employee is actually incapacitated by their condition. Citing FMLA regulations and persuasive authority, the court found that leave can be taken to prevent the onset of illness, such as an asthmatic employee staying home when the pollen count is high. The court acknowledged the novel issue that this interpretation allows an employee to use their annual 12-week FMLA entitlement to effectively eliminate an 'essential function' like mandatory overtime for the year. However, it concluded this is a permissible result contemplated by the statute, which, unlike the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), does not contain an 'undue hardship' defense for employers. An employee's inability to perform an essential function only becomes relevant to their right of reinstatement after their FMLA leave entitlement has been exhausted.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the protective scope of the FMLA's intermittent leave provisions, establishing that such leave can be used prophylactically to avoid triggering a chronic condition. It highlights a critical distinction between the FMLA and the ADA, affirming that the FMLA provides an absolute statutory entitlement to leave that is not subject to an 'undue hardship' or 'essential functions' analysis until after the leave is exhausted. This ruling empowers employees with chronic conditions to use their FMLA allotment to proactively manage their health by modifying their work schedules, even if it effectively alters core job duties for the duration of the leave. The case sets a precedent that may impact how employers handle requests for reduced schedules and overtime exemptions for medical reasons.
