In the recent precedential decision of Rodriquez v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 23-3074, 2024 WL 4470830 (3d Cir. Sept. 26, 2024), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an order of judgment as a matter of law in favor of an employer following a jury verdict against the employer on plaintiff’s claim of interference with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. (Notably, the jury verdict was against plaintiff on his FMLA retaliation claim).
In summary, the third circuit held that plaintiff had failed to establish an FMLA interference claim because he failed to prove at trial that he suffered from a “serious health condition” under the FMLA at the time that he requested FMLA leave. The third circuit agreed with the district court that because plaintiff had not undergone any medical treatment for his claimed health condition (migraine headaches) prior to his request for FMLA leave, there was no evidence upon which a jury could find that plaintiff suffered from a serious health condition at the time of his request for leave.
Background
The background of the case is that plaintiff, an employee of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), had numerous absences from work, most of which were not due to migraine headaches; however, it was undisputed that his last absence was because of a migraine headache. After SEPTA held an informal meeting during which plaintiff’s discharge was recommended, plaintiff requested FMLA leave and weeks later visited a physician to obtain paperwork supporting his FMLA claim for migraines. SEPTA then terminated his employment.
The Case
In considering whether there was sufficient evidence presented to the jury to support plaintiff’s interference claim, the third circuit initially focused upon whether plaintiff was entitled to benefits under the FMLA in the first instance, based upon the fundamental requirement that plaintiff suffered from a “serious health condition” at the time he requested FMLA leave. The court strenuously pointed out that an employee must have the claimed serious health condition at the time that the employee invokes the protections of the FMLA. In support of this prerequisite to FMLA benefits, the court observed that the FMLA regulations define a “chronic serious health condition” as one which “[r]equires periodic visits (defined as at least twice a year) for treatment by a health care provider, or by a nurse under [his or her] direct supervision[.]” Rodriquez v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., quoting 29 C.F.R. § 825.115(c). Examining the evidence presented by the plaintiff at trial on this issue, the third circuit observed that:
“Rodriquez presented no evidence of ever having visited a healthcare provider to treat his migraines before his termination and, apart from his visit to obtain FMLA paperwork, no evidence of ever visiting one thereafter. Thus, he failed as a matter of law to show that he had a ‘chronic serious health condition’ on June 8, 2018 [the date of his request for FMLA leave], and there was no evidence on which the jury could properly find he had one.” Rodriquez v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth.
The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that he presented sufficient evidence on this issue because the healthcare provider, who he visited weeks after his request for FMLA leave, opined that plaintiff would “need to have treatment visits at least twice per year due to the condition.” The court observed that the health provider’s medical form, “completed nearly a month after his absence, applied prospectively,” stressing that the “operative time for determining whether a particular condition qualifies as a serious health condition is the time that leave is requested or taken.” Citing Hansler v. Lehigh Valley Hosp. Network, 798 F.3d 149, 156 (3rd Cir 2015). A patient [employee] does not have a “serious health condition” under Section 825.111(c)(1) if he waits to see a healthcare provider until after the relevant absences.
The Rodriquez decision should serve as a reminder to employers to obtain medical information, such as medical records and medical report forms from employees upon their request leave under the FMLA to confirm that the employee has a “serious medical condition” for which the employee has received previous medical treatment.
This article originally appeared on Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP. www.fmglaw.com
About the Author:
Cynthia O'Donnell is a partner at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP. cynthia.odonnell@fmglaw.com