On Tuesday, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary
judgment on an FMLA claim where the employee was fired while on medical leave. Hodnett v.
Chardam Gear Co., Inc., No 18-1100 (6th Cir.
9-11-18). The employee’s doctor’s note
indicated that he should be off work because he required light duty and the
employer had refused to provide such work.
In fact, however, the employee had never spoken with anyone at the Company about whether he
could have light duty work and just assumed that it would be denied. When the employer received the note, it fired
him because he had never formally requested medical leave and because he had
never been denied light duty as indicated by his physician. While the court found that his medical leave
was protected under the FMLA, it also concluded that the employer was lawfully
entitled to terminate the employee for misrepresenting his work status.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was sent
home early on August 21 because he claimed that he could not lift a part weighing
four pounds. On his way home, he was in
a car accident. Although medical tests
found nothing broken, he was sent home with pain pills and told to take the
next day off work. However, he never
returned to work. He called off the
following week for a variety of reasons.
On August 29, he requested a vacation day after Labor Day. Claiming that he was suffering from pain, he sought
additional medical treatment and lost wage compensation from his automobile
insurance policy. He informed the
personnel clerk on October 3 and December 5 that he was off for a disability
that started on August 22.
By mid-October, the plaintiff was examined by a physician
who determined that he should not lift over 15 pounds. The physician faxed a report to the
employer indicating that the plaintiff should stay off work until November 18
and that the plaintiff had reported that he was not allowed to work with
restrictions, light/sedentary work. The plaintiff’s doctor told the insurance company
that he could return to work on October 18 with lifting restrictions which the
employer would not provide. Problem is,
the plaintiff never spoke with anyone at the employer about whether he could
work light duty and had not spoken with a supervisor at all since August 29. He was fired on November 9. When he protested being fired while on
protected leave, the employer pointed out that he had never applied for leave
and had given incorrect information to his physician about his working
conditions because he had never spoken with anyone about light duty and had not
even spoken with any supervisors since August 29.
The Court found that the plaintiff’s medical leave was
protected and the employer had failed to produce evidence of any policies
showing otherwise. Nonetheless, the
employer had a legitimate reason for firing the plaintiff that was unrelated to
his medical leave.
Chardam offered a legitimate reason for firing Hodnett,
unrelated to the exercise of his FMLA rights.
Hodnett responded to Chardam’s November 7, 2014 termination letter by
asserting that he had been on protected medical leave since August 22,
2014. Chardam responded by letter, explaining
that Hodnett’s employment relationship with Chardam had been terminated. Chardam said:
“You provided incorrect information to your doctor about having
restrictions, when you never discussed with anyone at the company about whether
you could work with any restrictions. You
had no discussions with any supervisor at the company since your last day of
work on August 29, 2014.” This
justification for firing Hodnett—that Hodnett had given false information to
the doctor about his ability to return to work—satisfies Chardam’s burden to
provide a legitimate reason, unrelated to the exercise of his FMLA rights, for
terminating Hodnett’s employment.
Plaintiff admitted that he had not spoken with any
supervisors since August 29, so he was unable to show that the employer’s
reason was false, and thus, pretextual.
The Court rejected the plaintiff’s unsupported argument that he had been
truthful – and accurate – that the employer would not have accommodated his
lifting restrictions. The plaintiff
could not prove the accuracy of his belief because he had not confirmed it with
the employer. While the Court did not
call it speculation, it could have. Even
under the ADA, the plaintiff employee is required to request an accommodation
before an employer is liable for denying one.
The physician’s note provided to the employer did not indicate what
restrictions the plaintiff required and so it could not constitute a request
for an accommodation.
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.
