On Monday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the FMLA and ADA claims brought by a bank teller. Boileau v.
Capital Bank Financial Corp., No. 15-5820
(6th Cir. 4-25-16). The employer
was permitted to terminate the plaintiff under the FMLA when her physician had
certified that she would be unable to return to work at the conclusion of her
FMLA entitlement. Further, she could not
prevail on her ADA claim on the grounds that a brief medical leave would constitute
a reasonable accommodation because her job required regular attendance, she had
already missed several months and her physician certified that she would
regularly miss several months for the rest of her life.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff suffered
from lupus and took a lot of FMLA leave in blocks and through intermittent
leave. In 2011, she took 3 weeks of
leave following surgery and then intermittent leave for the remainder of the
leave year. In 2012, she then took
another 2 weeks in January and then repeatedly delayed returning until April 2,
by which time her physician had reported that she could expect to be
incapacitated for 8-12 weeks every 1-2 months for the rest of her life. By mid-March, she had exhausted her FMLA
leave entitlement, her branch was short-staffed and, so, her employer
terminated her employment. When she
applied for unemployment, her physician certified that she was unable to work
until April 18, 2012.
The Court easily rejected her FMLA claim because she had only
speculative assertions of retaliation.
When the employer is given medical information that the employee will be
unable to return to work following the exhaustion of the FMLA entitlement, it
is not required to wait before terminating her employment. Further, the plaintiff could not prove that
its reason for her termination – her inability to return to work at the
conclusion of the FMLA leave – was pretext for retaliation.
The Court found that she could not prevail on her ADA claim
because she was not qualified in that she could not maintain regular attendance,
which was an essential function of a bank teller’s job. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument
that she only required an additional short medical leave of absence (i.e., two
weeks) because her physician had already certified that she would regularly
miss work for prolonged periods for the rest of her life. Individuals who miss work for months at a
time are not qualified under the ADA when regular attendance is an essential
function of the job.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and
alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and
does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead
to different results. Information here can be changed or amended without
notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If
you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or
retain an employment attorney.
