Source: http://pcm.state.wi.us/commission%20digest%20pages/dig773.htm
Timestamp: 2019-02-18 00:20:12
Document Index: 525852732

Matched Legal Cases: ['§103', '§111', '§103', '§103', '§103', '§103', '§103', '§103']

Digest 773
Sections 773 through 773.04
773 Violation of Family Medical Leave Act
Section 103.10(4)(c), Stats., sets forth the burden of proof placed upon the employe at the hearing on the employe's claim that the employer refused to allow the employe medical leave in violation of the FMLA. The provision does not address the employe's responsibilities under the FMLA when requesting medical leave. The legislative intent was to place the burden upon the employers to determine, at the time an employe requests sick leave, whether the employe (1) has a serious health condition (2) that renders the employe unable to perform the employe's work duties and (3) that a leave is medically necessary. Sieger v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 181 Wis. 2d 845, 512 N.W.2d 220, (Court of Appeals, 1994)
The request for FMLA leave need only be reasonably calculated to advise the employer that the employe is requesting leave under the FMLA and the reason for the request. The employe is not required to give the employer detailed information about the employe's medical condition. Sieger v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 181 Wis. 2d 845, 512 N.W.2d 220, (Court of Appeals, 1994)
The FMLA affords employers with three choices of action when an employe requests medical leave: 1) Approve the leave, (2) disapprove the leave or (3) request more information through the certification process in §103.10(7). Sieger v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 181 Wis. 2d 845, 512 N.W.2d 220, (Court of Appeals, 1994)
The employe in a FMLA case must establish they have met the employe's responsibilities under the FMLA in requesting a planned medical leave and then has the burden of proving the employer violated the FMLA by refusing to grant the requested medical leave. In order to successfully assert that the employer has wrongfully denied the employe medical leave, the employe must prove that the employe was entitled to medical leave under the FMLA. Sieger v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 181 Wis. 2d 845, 512 N.W.2d 220, (Court of Appeals, 1994)
To successfully assert that an employer wrongfully denied the employe medical leave, the employe must prove that (1) the employe had a serious health condition (2) which rendered the employe unable to perform the employe's work duties during the requested leave, (3) the leave was medically necessary and (4) the employe requested the planned medical leave in a reasonable manner. Sieger v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 181 Wis. 2d 845, 512 N.W.2d 220, (Court of Appeals, 1994)
No medical expert testimony was necessary where there were outward or overt manifestations, easily recognizable by lay persons, that the employe's serious health condition interfered with her ability to perform her work duties. However, where the employe's serious health condition did not manifest symptoms that lay people would recognize as necessitating a leave, medical expert testimony was necessary to establish that the employe's requested leave was medically necessary. Sieger v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 181 Wis. 2d 845, 512 N.W.2d 220, (Court of Appeals, 1994)
In dicta, the Commission noted it is not possible for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of an employees right under the FMLA (per complainant, the right to provide only reasonable or practicable advance notice as opposed to 30 minute advanced notice depending on the timing of an injury prior to the commencement of a scheduled work shift) if the employee never asserts the right or even provides any information relating to the underlying circumstances from which the employer could infer that such a right was being asserted. Berghoff v. DHFS, 96-0033-PC-ER, 6/19/97
In dicta, the Commission noted that if an employe showed that it was not possible, due to the timing of a FMLA-covered injury or illness, for the employe to meet the advance notice requirements of the employers attendance policy, it would be a violation of the FMLA for the employer, with knowledge of this situation, to take action against the employe for failure to meet these notice requirements, citing MPI Wi. Machining Div. V. DILHR, 159 Wis. 2d 358, 464 N.W.2d 79 (Ct. App. 1990). Berghoff v. DHFS, 96-0033-PC-ER, 6/19/97
In dicta, the Commission noted that while FMLA liability for improperly requiring advance notice of an absence (i.e., where the absence is unplanned and unintended) does not require that the employer have the intent to violate the law, but the employe has an obligation to provide the information to the employer that lets the employer know the circumstances surrounding his or her failure to call in in a timely manner that take the case into the exception to the FMLAs advance notice requirement. Respondent could not have granted complainant an exception to the 30 minute call-in requirement where respondent did not know until after both the pre-disciplinary hearing and the date of complainants discharge that he was claiming his absence was unplanned and unintended. Berghoff v. DHFS, 96-0033-PC-ER, 6/19/97
The employers decision to approve complainants contractual sick leave does not automatically place the leave under the protection of the FMLA. Under the plain language of the contract, that sick leave was more generous, or broader, than the use of medical leave under the FMLA. Complainant had never requested FMLA leave for several of his absences. Preller v. UWHCA, 96-0151-PC-ER, 4/11/97
It is not always necessary for an employe to specifically request medical leave under the FMLA a prerequisite to gaining protection under the FMLA, citing Jicha v. State, 164 Wis. 2d 94, 473 N.W.2d 578 (Ct. App., 1991). The key is whether respondent received actual or effective notice that complainants absence was due to a serious health condition, based on a reasonable employer standard. Preller v. UWHCA, 96-0151-PC-ER, 4/11/97
The opinion of a treating physician is not necessarily dispositive of the question of whether leave was medically necessary under the FMLA. An opinion to the contrary from a different medical expert; the treating physicians failure to particularize the basis for her opinion, failure to prescribe leave during a period of time when she regarded the complainants symptoms as more severe than during the leave period, and failure to document her prescription for leave and its purpose in her treatment notes; and the complainants participation in college classes and an exam during the leave period, supported a conclusion that the leave was not medically necessary under the FMLA. Sieger v. DHSS, 90-0085-PC-ER, 5/14/96; affirmed by Lincoln County Circuit Court, Sieger v. Wis. DHSS & Wis. Pers. Comm., 96-CV-120, 4/4/97; affirmed by Court of Appeals, Sieger v. Wis. Pers. Comm. & DHSS, 97-1538, 12/2/97
The presence of emergency or exigent circumstances is not a prerequisite for taking family leave without advance notice, citing MPI Wis. Machining Div. v. DILHR, 159 Wis.2d 358, 376-66, 464 N.W.2d 79 (Ct. App. 1979). The only advance notice requirement for taking leave to care for a spouse is if the employe intends to take family leave because of "planned medical treatment or supervision." Emmons v. DHSS, 93-0097, 0112-PC-ER, 11/27/95
The employer is not prohibited by the FMLA from requiring contemporaneous notice by an employe who leaves the workplace for unplanned leave. Emmons v. DHSS, 93-0097, 0112-PC-ER, 11/27/95
An employe who returned from FMLA leave was offered the opportunity to return to her former position, and declined. The FMLA imposes no obligation to offer alternative employment under such circumstances. Ripp v. UW-Extension, 93-0113-PC-ER, 6/21/94
An allegation that an employe was terminated in retaliation for having taken FMLA covered leave states a claim under the FMLA. Additionally, an employe who alleges she attempted to exercise a right under the FMLA and then was retaliated against because of that states a claim under the FEA retaliation provisions, §111.322(2m)(a), Stats. Ripp v. UW-Extension, 93-0113-PC-ER, 6/21/94
The requirement in §103.10(8), Stats., that an employer place an employe in the same or an equivalent position after returning from family leave also applies when an employe returns from a partial family leave, i.e. a period when the employe works part time. Zimmerman v. UW-Madison, 92-0224-PC-ER, 6/21/94
Respondent did not violate the FMLA when, on completion of complainant's family leave, respondent temporarily assigned him duties according to the same ratio in effect prior to his leave, and also proposed a new set of duties. It was the proposed duties, which were still being hashed out at the time of complainant's return, that had to be analyzed in terms of whether complainant was being offered a position that was equivalent to his previous one. Zimmerman v. UW-Madison, 92-0224-PC-ER, 6/21/94
The FMLA does not give a returning employe a unilateral right to occupy his or her former position upon returning from leave. Zimmerman v. UW-Madison, 92-0224-PC-ER, 6/21/94
A request by complainant's superior for information from complainant's physician was not a demand for certification subject to §103.10(7) where complainant had informed management that her physician had encouraged her to take time away from work to make some personal decision including career and education decisions. Sieger v. DHSS, 90-0085-PC-ER, 11/8/91; reversed on other grounds by Court of Appeals, Sieger v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 181 Wis. 2d 845, 512 N.W.2d 220, (Court of Appeals, 1994)
In interpreting the reference to "no more restrictive" in §Ind 86.01(6), Wis. Adm. Code, the Commission will look at all elements of the statutory leave, compare each of those elements to the corresponding elements of the contractual leave provided by the employer and determine whether, in terms of any of those elements, the contractual leave is more restrictive. Lawless v. UW-Madison, 90-0023-PC-ER, 6/1/90; precedential value qualified, 1/11/91
Where complainant's contractual leave provisions only permitted the use of accrued sick leave for conditions which require confinement or render the employe unable to work or where work would jeopardize the employe's health or recovery, and where none of these limitations exist when the complainant invokes the statutory family leave provisions, the contractual leave was more restrictive than was available under §103.10(3)(b)1., Stats. Lawless v. UW-Madison, 90-0023-PC-ER, 6/1/90; precedential value qualified, 1/11/91
No probable cause was found with respect to complainants FMLA claim where the stated reason for complainants discharge was complainants failure to notify his employer, if he was going to be absent due to illness, at least 30 minutes before the commencement of his shift, where complainant was working under the terms of a "last chance" agreement and where complainants version of events relevant to his contention that a re-injury prevented him from complying with the 30 minute advance call-in requirement was not credible. Berghoff v. DHFS, 96-0033-PC-ER, 6/19/97
Complainant's probationary termination violated the FMLA because it was based in part on leave taken that was subject to the FMLA, notwithstanding that complainant's total absence from employment exceeded the 80 hours permitted during a 12 month period pursuant to §103.10(4), Stats. The latter provision does not mean an employe loses all protection under the FMLA once he or she exceeds 80 hours. It simply places an annual limit on the number of hours of statutory leave an employer is required to provide under the FMLA. Meyer v. DHSS, 91-0006-PC-ER, 6/11/92
Respondent's termination decision was overturned where 30 hours of the 62.5 hours of absence and 2 tardy days that were recited in the termination letter involved serious health conditions covered by the employe's FMLA statutory leave and where respondent failed to offer any evidence that it would have terminated complainant's employment if it had not considered the FMLA protected absences. Meyer v. DHSS, 91-0006-PC-ER, 6/11/92
The FMLA definition of a serious health condition (§103.10(1)(g), Stats.) was not satisfied by a "groin pull" which did not required follow-up care after the initial contact with a health care provider. The definition was satisfied by a condition for which complainant was seen in the emergency room and which was diagnosed as gastroenteritis and hyperbilirubinemia, with a recommendation that complainant see his personal physician in two days, and where he was hospitalized for three days commencing four days after that for the same symptoms. The period for which he was hospitalized, with a diagnosis of acute peptic ulcer disease, was also covered by the statutory definition. Meyer v. DHSS, 91-0006-PC-ER, 6/11/92
Respondent did not retaliate against complainant under the Family Medical Leave Act or the Fair Employment Act for having filed prior FMLA claims when it terminated his employment where respondent's action was consistent with the manner in which respondent treated other apparently similarly situated employes and where there was no showing that respondent's action was per se unreasonable. Complainant had chronic attendance problems over a lengthy period of time and the record did not support a conclusion that complainant's termination resulted from anything other than complainant's lengthy and continuing history of attendance problems. Preller v. UWHCB, 96-0151-PC-ER, etc., 8/18/98; affirmed Dane County Circuit Court, 98-CV-2387, 12/6/99
No FMLA retaliation was found with respect to respondents actions of requesting additional information after complainant had filed her request to return to work on light duty at the end of her scheduled medical leave, of contacting complainants physician to clarify the physicians prior letter, requesting medical clearance from complainants physician and asking complainant to provide an outline of her general leave plan for the subsequent six month period. Bower v. UW-Madison, 95-0052-PC-ER, 8/15/96
The opinion of a treating physician is not necessarily dispositive of the question of whether leave was medically necessary under the FMLA. An opinion to the contrary from a different medical expert; the treating physicians failure to particularize the basis for her opinion, failure to prescribe leave during a period of time when she regarded the complainants symptoms as more severe than during the leave period, and failure to document her prescription for leave and its purpose in her treatment notes; and the complainants participation in college classes and an exam during the leave period, supported a conclusion that the leave was not medically necessary under the FMLA. Sieger v. DHSS, 90-0085-PC-ER, 5/14/96; affirmed by Lincoln County Circuit Court, Sieger v. Wis. DHSS & Wis. Pers. Comm., 96-CV-120, 4/4/97; affirmed by Court of Appeals, Sieger v. Wis. Pers. Comm. & DHSS, 97-1538, 12/2/97.
Respondent did not violate the FMLA when it offered complainant a revised set of duties upon his return from leave without providing complainant an extensive written description of the duties and even though they were still being clarified, where complainant preemptively rejected the proposed duties "whatever" they might be and where the evidence did not support complainant's contention that the proposed duties were, as a consequence of the source of funding, less secure or part of a dead-end position. Zimmerman v. UW-Madison, 92-0224-PC-ER, 6/21/94
Respondent did not retaliate against the complainant when it subjected the complainant's leave requests to increased scrutiny where the respondent was justified in concluding that complainant was a leave abuser. Sieger v. DHSS, 90-0085-PC-ER, 11/8/91; reversed on other grounds by Court of Appeals, Sieger v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 181 Wis. 2d 845, 512 N.W.2d 220, (Court of Appeals, 1994)
Respondent did not retaliate against the complainant when it proposed a new work schedule where the respondent revised the schedule as recommended by complainant. Sieger v. DHSS, 90-0085-PC-ER, 11/8/91; reversed on other grounds by Court of Appeals, Sieger v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 181 Wis. 2d 845, 512 N.W.2d 220, (Court of Appeals, 1994)
Respondent did not retaliate against the complainant when it denied her leave/tuition reimbursement request for three college courses where the courses were not job-related. Sieger v. DHSS, 90-0085-PC-ER, 11/8/91; reversed on other grounds by Court of Appeals, Sieger v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 181 Wis. 2d 845, 512 N.W.2d 220, (Court of Appeals, 1994)
Respondent did not retaliate against the complainant when it instructed the complainant to revise a travel expense reimbursement form where this procedure was consistently followed by complainant's supervisor when the claimed amount was in excess of the maximum allowed. Sieger v. DHSS, 90-0085-PC-ER, 11/8/91; reversed on other grounds by Court of Appeals, Sieger v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 181 Wis. 2d 845, 512 N.W.2d 220, (Court of Appeals, 1994)
Respondent did not retaliate against the complainant when it required documentation for a travel expense reimbursement form where such documentation was standard practice for the respondent. Sieger v. DHSS, 90-0085-PC-ER, 11/8/91; reversed on other grounds by Court of Appeals, Sieger v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 181 Wis. 2d 845, 512 N.W.2d 220, (Court of Appeals, 1994)
Respondent did not retaliate against the complainant when it refused to reimburse her for a course where the person who processed the complainant's request was unaware of the complainant's FMLA leave request. Sieger v. DHSS, 90-0085-PC-ER, 11/8/91; reversed on other grounds by Court of Appeals, Sieger v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 181 Wis. 2d 845, 512 N.W.2d 220, (Court of Appeals, 1994)
Complainant, who suffered from migraine equivalent attacks that were temporarily disabling and rendered him incapable of functioning during an attack, had a disabling condition under the FMLA. Lubitz v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Portage County Circuit Court, 98-CV-0031, 12/14/98; reversed on other grounds by Court of Appeals, 99-0628, 2/24/00
Complainant's condition qualified as involving outpatient care requiring continuing treatment where complainant had several contacts, both in person and by phone, with several physicians at a second clinic regarding his condition, where complainant had been referred by a physician at his first clinic to a local physician for management of the prescription for his condition, and where complainant's contact with the first clinic was in person for examination, diagnosis, treatment and supervision, as well as by letter and telephone. These contacts occurred over a period of more than 10 years. Lubitz v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Portage County Circuit Court, 98-CV-0031, 12/14/98; reversed on other grounds, Court of Appeals, 99-0628, 2/24/00
Complainant did not receive continuous treatment or supervision for his back condition where his contacts with a physician consisted of two phone conversations, which were not "direct" and "firsthand," and one visit, which related to an absence 2.5 months earlier. Preller v. UWHCB, 96-0151-PC-ER, etc., 8/18/98; affirmed Dane County Circuit Court, 98-CV-2387, 12/6/99
Where complainant did not contend that any of the instances of tardiness or any of the absences underlying the personnel actions at issue resulted from his sleep apnea or from his morbid obesity (other than that his obesity exacerbated his lower back pain), there was no causal connection established as to these alleged health conditions. Preller v. UWHCB, 96-0151-PC-ER, etc., 8/18/98; affirmed Dane County Circuit Court, 98-CV-2387, 12/6/99
Complainant did not receive "continuing treatment or supervision by a health care provider" where there was no evidence he received inpatient care for "mild episodes of back strain" and he only saw his physician 6 times in 15 years for the condition, including a 9 year hiatus. There had been a 1 year hiatus prior to the first absence in question and complainant did not see a doctor at all for another absence for which he sought FMLA leave. Marfilius v. UW-Madison, 96-0026-PC-ER, 4/24/97
Complainant demonstrated that his wife had a serious health condition where the record reflected that she was suffering from acute alcohol dependence. Emmons v. DHSS, 93-0097, 0112-PC-ER, 11/27/95
In a situation involving an acute, chronic condition such as acute alcohol dependence, once the complainant has established the existence of the status or condition for the period in question, complainant has met his burden of proceeding as to this issue. Where there was no showing by respondent that the condition had changed for the better as of the specific date it took the adverse personnel action, complainant was not required to have shown specifically that all the elements of the serious health condition were extant on that date. Emmons v. DHSS, 93-0097, 0112-PC-ER, 11/27/95
Where complainant's wife suffered from acute alcohol dependence and was discharged from a hospital on January 13th with a plan of treatment that required ongoing professional outpatient treatment, she was receiving "[o]utpatient care that requires continuing treatment or supervision by a health care provider," §103.10(1)(g), Stats., at the time of complainant's discharge on April 23rd, even though she missed her appointment in the fourth month of the program. Emmons v. DHSS, 93-0097, 0112-PC-ER, 11/27/95
Respondent did not violate the FMLA where the complainant did not request leave for the period in which it was alleged to have been denied him. On other occasions, respondent had granted the complainant family leave even though he failed to comply with respondent's procedures for requesting leave. Georgia v. DOR, 90-0091-PC-ER, 1/24/92