Source: https://federalfmla.typepad.com/federal_fmla_blog/interference/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:11:30+00:00

Document:
Charlene Wisbey was employed b y the City of Lincoln, Nebraska as an emergency dispatcher. The position required Wisbey to receive calls for emergency services and dispatch emergency service units on a regular basis. Because of the potential life-saving aspect of her position, the City Expected Wisbey to function accurately while working under considerable pressure and to think and act quickly and calmly in emergency situations.
During January-February, Wisbey used a significant amount of sick leave for an upper respiratory infection, for which she received a letter of warning. To avoid further discipline, the City recommended that Wisbey apply for intermittent FMLA leave, which she did. The medical certification supporting her request for intermittent FMLA leave cited recurring cycles of depression and anxiety that interfered with her sleep, energy level, motivation, and concentration. It also stated that Wisbey was unable to perform the essential functions of her job The certification concluded that Wisbey would need to take time off intermittently over the next 6 months or longer.
Concerned about her ability to perform her job as an emergency dispatcher, the City directed Wisbey to undergo a fitness-for-duty exam (FFD), which she did. The FFD concluded that Wisbey suffered from chronic relapsing depression which intermittently interfered wit her ability to function at full capacity at work, and that she was not fit for duty, especially regarding her ability to concentrate and her ongoing propensity to miss work. The City terminated Wisbey as unfit for duty. Wisbey filed suit alleging violations of the ADA and FMLA.
With respect to the ADA, the Court rejected Wisbey's argument that the City did not have a legitimate, non-discriminatory business necessity to require her to submit to the FFD. Citing a decision of the Second Circuit in Gajda v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Autho., 396 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2005), the Eighth Circuit agreed that representations made in an employee's FMLA medical certification that the employee is unable to perform the functions of his or her position may serve as a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for employer to require an FFD.
With respect to the FMLA, the Court rejected Wisbey's claim that the City interfered with her FMLA rights, noting that she was never denied FMLA leave. Significantly, quoting prior Eighth Circuit opinions, the Court noted that the FMLA "does not provide leave for leave's sake, but instead provides leave with an expectation an employee will return to work after the leave ends," Throneberry v. McGhee Desha County Hosp., 403 F.3d 972, 978 (8th Cir. 2005), and that "the FMLA doe snot provide an employee suffering from depression with a right to unscheduled and unpredictable, but cumulatively substantial, absences or a right to take unscheduled leave at a moment's notice for the rest of her career. On the contrary, such a situation implies that she is not qualified for a position where reliable attendance is a bona fide requirement." Spangler v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Des Moines, 278 F.3d 847, 853 (8th Cir. 2002).
Because Wisbey requested "intermittent leave" for "six months or longer," the Court concluded that she did not have a right to FMLA leave. Without the right to FMLA leave, the City "could not have interfered with Wisbey's rights under the FMLA." The Court also rejected Wisbey's FMLA retaliation claim, finding that the decision to terminate her was not casually related to her request for FMLA leave a month before, but was due to the results of the FFD.
Comment: Long-term intermittent absences with little predictability or notice is the bane of employers who need employees present to get the work done. Of course, from the perspective of the employee who needs intermittent leave due to their own serious health condition or to care for a family member with a serious health condition, this is why the FMLA exits- to protect the employee from having to make a choice between their job and caring for their own or a family members medical needs.
For my money, the Eighth Circuit went too far by stating that an employee who needs intermittent FMLA leave for "6 months or more" somehow forfeits the right to take FMLA leave. The statement is flat out wrong. If an eligible employee meets all of the criteria, the FMLA affords the employee the right to take up to 12 weeks of intermittent FMLA leave for their own serious health condition, or the serious health condition of a covered family member, over the course of a 12-month leave year. Except perhaps in the Eighth Circuit, an employer that denied an eligible employee intermittent FMLA leave after six months - even though they have a certification stating that they needed intermittent leave for more than six months - relying on Wisbey would, in my estimation, interfere with that employee's FMLA rights. That could cost the employer big time in an FMLA interference suit.
What employers should take away from Wisbey is that an employee who needs intermittent FMLA leave long-term or forever may not be qualified for their position. Obviously, this will depend on the job duties of the position, including whether regular and predictable attendance is required. If they are not fit for the position because of their FMLA-covered condition, employers do not have to continue to employ the individual. The fact that, if employed, the individual would have the right to take intermittent FMLA leave is not controlling. Think of it this way: the FMLA entitles an employee to leave. If the same FMLA covered-condition that entitles an employee to take leave also interferes with the employees ability to adequately perform their job when they are at work, the FMLA does not protect the employee from discipline for poor performance for the job they did when at work.
Employers would be well-advised to proceed with caution in applying Wisbey. Other courts may less quick to find that an employee needing intermittent FMLA leave is unfit for duty and, therefore, may be terminated -particularly where the employee has not exhausted his or her annual entitlement to FMLA leave.
Anderson, an eligible employee of Avon Products, an FMLA covered employer, requested a sick day for a diverticulitis episode. In response, Shao, his supervisor, indicated that Anderson would incur an attendance violation if he did not come to work only if he did not produce a doctor's note explaining his absence. Anderson elected not to take the leave. He was not assessed an attendance violation.
Anderson's FMLA-interference claim is therefore based on his fear that Avon might have disciplined him had he taken the leave. But that fear, as explained above, ws unfounded, given Shao's statement.
Comment: Although unstated, the court applied a reasonable person standard in finding that that Shao's statement did not interfere with Anderson's FMLA rights. Although awkwardly phrased, Shao's statement, when deconstructed, did not threaten adverse action if Anderson took FMLA leave. The fact that Anderson believed otherwise was not controlling.
While ultimately victorious, the lawsuit undoubtedly cost Avon a bundle in time and treasure to defend. The situation may have been avoided had Avon providedShao with an approved form or packet for responding to employee requests for FMLA leave in a way that avoids costly ambiguity. Supervisors would be trained to simply hand over the FMLA packet. If the employee has questions they should be directed to a named HR professional. Given the complexity of the FMLA and the cost of litigation, vesting primary responsibility for handling FMLA requests with front line supervisors is fraught with expensive danger.
Anderson v. Avon Products, Inc., 2009 FED App. 0540N, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17499 (6th Cir. Aug. 5, 2009).
Wojan v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc.,No. 07-11544, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69576 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 15, 2008), the employee took 12 weeks of FMLA leave from her medical sales position incident to the birth of a child. Because she took 12 weeks of FMLA leave, she did not meet her sales goals for the year. The company did not adjust her sales quota to account for her leave. Under company policy, sales goals are not adjusted for any employee for any reason, including FMLA leave. Alcon placed Wojan on a performance improvement plan because she did not meet her sales goals. She was eventually terminated. Prior to this incident, Wojan had consistently achieved high performance ratings.
An employer that discourages an employee from taking FMLA leave may be liable for interfering with an employee's FLAM rights even though the employer ultimately grants all FMLA leave requested.
The case is relevant to civil service employees covered by Title II. OPM did not adopt a regulation similar to 825.220(b) defining "interference" with FMLA rights to include discouraging an employee from taking FMLA leave. However, Title II itself broadly prohibits direct or indirect acts of intimidation, threats, or coercion for the purpose of interfering with a civil service employee's FMLA rights. See 5 USC 6385.
The decision of the Seventh Circuit is based on the DOL FMLA regulations of Title I of the FMLA. Title I applies to non-civil service federal employees. Under Title I, an employer may require an employer to comply with the employer's usual and customary procedural requirements for requesting leave. 29 CFR 825.302(d). According to the Seventh Circuit, those permissible procedural requirements include the requirement that a supporting medical certification be directly submitted to the employer by the health care provider.
Title II of the FMLA applies to federal civil service employees. The OPM FMLA regulations are not identical to the DOL regulations regarding an employer's "usual and customary policies and procedures." The OPM regulation, 5 CFR 630.1206(e), focuses exclusively on the employer's usual and customary notice requirements for requesting leave. In contrast, the DOL regulation addresses the employer's usual and customary "notice and procedural requirements for requesting leave." 29 CFR 825.302(d). It could be argued that the exclusion of "and procedural requirements" in the OPM regulations limits the reach of an employer's "usual and customary" procedures to notice only, and not to certification issues. Such an interpretation would render Taylor inapposite to civil service employees.
Having said that, the OPM FMLA regulations do not specifically prohibit an employer from requiring direct submission of a medical certification from a health care provider. The issue is simply not addressed.
Federal employers concerned with fraud may want to consider implementing a reasonable policy requiring that any medical certification be submitted directly by the health care provider. Federal employers need to think through such a policy for civil service employees in light of the differences between the language of the DOL and OPM regulations.
In denying summary judgment to the employer, the court in Kesler v. Barris, Scott, Denn & Driker, PLLC, No. 04-40235, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31577 (E.D. Mich. April 17, 2008) found that employer questions to employees while on FMLA leave and employer requests that an employee perform work duties while on FMLA leave "are sufficient to constitute an FMLA interference claim is supported by relevant case law."
Comment: While an employee is on FMLA leave employers would be well-advised to avoid contacting the employee on work-related issues. Asking or requiring the employee to perform work while absent on FMLA leave is simply out of the question.
Some courts have allowed a de minimis amount of employer contact (e.g., where is a file type questions) without finding an FMLA violation. The more contacts, and/or the more extensive the contacts, the more likely that an employer will be found to have interfered with the employee's FMLA rights.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.