Opinion ID: 6330219
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: King’s April 2017 Asthma Flare-Up

Text: This lawsuit arises out of one of King’s particularly severe asthma flare-ups that began in April 2017. Between 2016 and 2017, King worked three shifts each week from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. On April 28, 2017,1 King reported for her twelve-hour shift at the Hospital. But King did not complete her shift because, about eight hours into her workday, she had an asthma attack that left her unable to breathe. Over the next five weeks, King continued to suffer from severe asthma-related symptoms. At the peak of her flare-up, on May 15, her symptoms landed her in the emergency room of the Hospital seeking treatment. King could not work throughout this time, and she called in sick for her next fourteen shifts. She followed Hospital protocols and called either Bungard or the house supervisor at least two hours before each shift and reported that she could not work because of her asthma flare-up. Even though King missed fourteen days of work, Bungard does not remember having to cover any of her shifts, nor does he recall her absence causing any problems. King regularly saw her physician, Dr. Ramamurthy Alam, during this period. She worked with Dr. Alam to find new medications and treatments for her asthma—including oral steroids, inhalers, and nebulizers. At some point between April 28 and May 15, Dr. Alam told King that she “was not able to return to work” until they developed a better treatment plan. (King Dep., R. 44, Page ID #273.) At that time, Dr. Alam did not give King any documentation indicating that she needed medical leave following her April 28 flare-up. At first, King put off calling FMLASource to ask for leave because she “thought that she was going to improve” and that her flare-up would not be a long-term issue. (King Dep., R. 45, Page ID #712, #715.) Instead, her symptoms got worse, leading to her emergency room visit on May 15. She called FMLASource four days later, on May 19. During that call, King told FMLASource that she “was calling in to request the leave” because of her asthma. (King Dep., R. 44, Page ID #266.) King did not say how much time she needed off. FMLASource “told [King] that [she] was ineligible to apply for a leave because [she] had only worked 300 and some hours in the prior . . . year.” (Id.) King said that this could not be right because she was a full-time employee. To fix the problem, FMLASource told King to contact Cindy Burns, who worked in the Hospital’s 1 From this point onwards, all references to specific dates are for the year 2017. No. 21-3445 King v. Steward Trumbull Mem. Hosp. Page 6 human resources department. According to King, FMLASource “would not even put in for the leave” because it thought King did not have the hours for FMLA leave. (King Dep., R. 45, Page ID #714.) According to the Hospital, “[a] leave request was not initiated on the basis of this call because [King] asked only about her FMLA eligibility and did not request a leave.” (Fischer Decl., R. 49-2, Page ID #1378–79.) Believing that FMLASource had miscalculated her hours, King called Burns on May 19. King told Burns that she was trying to apply for leave, but that FMLASource was not letting her do so because of her low hours. Burns said that FMLASource did not have an accurate count of King’s hours because the Hospital recently changed management, and King’s hours had not been properly carried over to the new systems. To fix the error, Burns would need to manually update King’s hours. Burns said that she would correct this mistake and follow up with King. A week passed, and King did not hear back from Burns. King then called Bungard. She told him that she “was trying to apply for the hospital’s medical leave and FMLA.” (King Dep., R. 44, Page ID #271.) King told Bungard about the hours issue and her call with Burns. Bungard said he would investigate and get back to her. A few days later, on May 30, King called FMLASource again “to see if the hours had been corrected so [she] could apply for the leave.” (King Dep., R. 45, Page ID #752.) After reaching out to FMLASource on May 19, King kept calling in sick and began telling Hospital supervisors (Bungard and others) that she “was trying to get a leave but [she] hadn’t gotten it yet so [she] was reporting off again for the next day.” (King Dep., R. 44, Page ID #270.) She specifically told them that she “was trying to apply for [leave].” (Id.) While King was trying to sort out her hours, the Hospital terminated her employment. On June 2, Bungard called her in for a meeting and terminated her for “failure to apply timely for a leave of absence.” (Bungard Dep., R. 50, Page ID #1419.) At that time, King still had not heard back from Burns, she had not been able to apply for leave, and, therefore, she had not received an approved leave of absence. On June 5—three days after her termination—King reached out to FMLASource again to see if they had updated her hours and to apply for leave. Even though FMLASource had finally updated her hours, her corrected timesheets showed that she only worked 1,170 hours in the past year, so she was still ineligible for FMLA leave. The Hospital admits that, on June 5, King No. 21-3445 King v. Steward Trumbull Mem. Hosp. Page 7 specifically asked for FMLA leave from April 28 to June 1. “Because [King] was ineligible for FMLA leave, FMLASource next evaluated whether [she] was entitled to any other type of leave.” (Fischer Decl., R. 49-2, Page ID #1379.) FMLASource sent King a letter on June 5 saying that it was considering her request for leave. The letter told King that her physician, Dr. Alam, needed to complete a medical certification form and fax it directly to FMLASource. The certification form contemplated leave for employees with “chronic health condition[s]” that “may cause episodic incapacity or flare-ups . . . (e.g. asthma . . .).” (FMLASource Letter, R. 44, Page ID #653.) Dr. Alam faxed the form to FMLASource on June 6—indicating that King needed medical leave from April 28 to June 1 because she was “[u]nable to work/perform job duties” due to her “chronic health condition.” (Id. at Page ID #655.) Dr. Alam cleared King for work beginning on June 2. After receiving Dr. Alam’s certification form, FMLASource retroactively approved part of King’s request. On June 22, FMLASource told King that she was entitled to non-FMLA leave because of her asthma. But FMLASource has “a five-day ‘look back’ period when making determinations regarding unforeseeable leaves.” (Fischer Decl., R. 49-2, Page ID #1378.) “That is, an employee was generally granted leave for up to five days prior to the day the employee first requested leave.” (Id.) According to FMLASource, King did not request leave until June 5, and, therefore, it initially only approved leave from May 31 to June 1. After learning this, King called FMLASource and said that she had applied for leave on May 19. In response, FMLASource adjusted the look back period and retroactively approved King’s request for leave from May 14 to June 1. It denied her request for leave from April 28 to May 13 because King “did not provide sufficient notice for leave.” (FMLASource Letter, R. 44, Page ID #658.) Despite retroactively approving periods of non-FMLA leave, nothing about this decision affected King’s termination on June 2. No. 21-3445 King v. Steward Trumbull Mem. Hosp. Page 8