Taylor v. AUTOZONERS, LLC
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12802, 706 F. Supp. 2d 843, 2010 WL 569560 (2010)
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 condition qualifies as a 'serious health condition' based on 'incapacity' only if a healthcare provider determines the employee is unable to work. An employee's own judgment that they cannot work, or a medical restriction to light-duty work, is insufficient to establish incapacity.
Facts:
- Karen Taylor was hired by AutoZoners on July 3, 2007, for a physically demanding role as an 'order selector.'
- On April 28, 2008, Taylor injured her back while working.
- From April to July 2008, various doctors treated Taylor for back strain, prescribed medication and physical therapy, and consistently released her to return to work with light-duty restrictions.
- Taylor became eligible for FMLA leave on her one-year anniversary, July 3, 2008.
- Between July 13 and July 28, 2008, Taylor accrued several attendance 'occurrences' for absences she attributed to her back pain.
- Following an emergency room visit on July 28, 2008, a physician provided a note stating she could return to work on July 30, a two-day absence.
- On July 28, 2008, AutoZoners terminated Taylor's employment for violating its attendance policy by accumulating twelve occurrences.
- At no point prior to her termination was Taylor instructed by a healthcare provider to refrain from working for more than three consecutive days.
Procedural Posture:
- Karen Taylor filed a lawsuit against AutoZoners, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
- Taylor's complaint alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim.
- The defendant, AutoZoners, filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the FMLA claims.
- The plaintiff, Taylor, filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, seeking a ruling that her injury was a 'serious health condition' under the FMLA.
- The case is now before the district court to rule on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.
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 back strain qualify as a 'serious health condition' under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when the employee was never instructed by a healthcare provider to miss more than three consecutive days of work, even if they were placed on light-duty restrictions?
Opinions:
Majority - J. Daniel Breen
No. An employee's back strain does not qualify as a 'serious health condition' under the FMLA without sufficient proof of incapacity. The FMLA requires that an employee be unable to perform the functions of their position, which necessitates a determination by a healthcare provider, not the employee's subjective assessment. Here, Taylor failed to demonstrate she was incapacitated for the required duration. To qualify under the 'continuing treatment' prong, an employee must be incapacitated for more than three consecutive calendar days, but the only doctor's note Taylor received authorized a two-day absence. Her condition also did not qualify as 'chronic' because there was no evidence of an extended duration of treatment or recurring episodes of incapacity. The court reasoned that being restricted to light-duty work is not equivalent to being incapacitated, as the employee is still able to work. Therefore, since Taylor did not have a 'serious health condition,' she was not entitled to FMLA leave, and her interference and retaliation claims must fail.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the definition of 'incapacity' for the purpose of establishing a 'serious health condition' under the FMLA. It establishes a clear precedent that an employee's subjective belief of inability to work or a physician's light-duty restriction is not sufficient; there must be an objective determination by a healthcare provider that the employee cannot work at all. This ruling narrows the scope of conditions that qualify for FMLA protection, particularly for musculoskeletal injuries where an employee might be able to perform some work. It strengthens an employer's position in enforcing attendance policies for employees on light duty, as their absences may not trigger FMLA protections without a specific doctor's order to miss work for the statutory period.
