Hansler
v. Lehigh Valley Hospital Network – 3d Cir. – June 22, 2015
Deborah
Hansler requested intermittent leave from her former employer, Lehigh Valley
Health Network, under the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 2601 et seq. She submitted a medical certification requesting leave
for two days a week for approximately one month. The medical certification refers to the length
of her requested leave but not the nature or duration of her condition. A few weeks later, after she took several days
off work, Lehigh Valley terminated Hansler’s employment without seeking any
clarification about her medical certification, as required by law. Lehigh Valley cited excessive absences and
informed her that the request for leave had been denied. Hansler sued Lehigh Valley for violations of
the Medical Leave Act, and the District Court dismissed the complaint on the
basis that the medical certification supporting Hansler’s request for leave was
“invalid.” We conclude that, in failing to afford Hansler a chance to cure any
deficiencies in her medical certification, Lehigh Valley violated the Medical
Leave Act. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The
Department of Labor’s regulations govern how employers are to respond to
perceived deficiencies in medical certifications. An employer “shall advise an
employee whenever the employer finds a certification incomplete or
insufficient, and shall state in writing what additional information is
necessary to make the certification complete and sufficient.” 29 C.F.R. §
825.305(c). A certification is “incomplete” if the “employer receives a
certification, but one or more of the applicable entries have not been
completed.” Id. A certification is “insufficient” if the “employer
receives a complete certification, but the information provided is vague,
ambiguous, or non-responsive.” Id. If the employer determines that a
certification is either incomplete or insufficient, it may deny the requested
leave on the basis of an inadequate certification. But it may only do so if it
has “provide[d] the employee with seven calendar days (unless not practicable
under the particular circumstances despite the employee’s diligent good faith
efforts) to cure any such deficiency.” Id.; see Hansen v. Fincantieri
Marine Grp., LLC, 763 F.3d 832, 837 (7th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he regulations do
not authorize the employer to deny FMLA leave where the employee fails to
provide a complete and sufficient certification but is not given the
opportunity to cure the deficiency.”).
Hansler
does not argue on appeal that her certification established the “extended
period of time” requirement under the FMLA, and we do not decide that issue
here. Instead, Hansler maintains she was
entitled to the cure period set forth in the regulations because the
certification was insufficient, rather than negative on its face. We agree. When
a certification submitted by an employee is “vague, ambiguous, or
non-responsive” the employer must, under 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(c), provide the
employee an opportunity to cure the deficiency within seven days. Cf.
cases discussing negative certifications.
Although the First, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits appear to agree that
“employers have no responsibility to conduct further investigation when a
certification is invalid on its face,” the cases discussing negative
certifications do not apply where a court or employer are considering an
ambiguous or non-responsive certification. Hoffman, 394 F.3d at 418-19.
_____________________
If the case is not recent, the link in this posting may not
work. In that case, search for the case by name and date on Westlaw,
Lexis, Google Scholar, or the court website http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/court-opinions/
