What a Headache! The Third Circuit finds that a plaintiff’s migraines were not a serious health condition under the FMLA
This decision highlights what constitutes a “serious condition” under FMLA, and the standards that should be applied in assessing such claims. This decision highlights what constitutes a “serious health condition” under the FMLA, and the standards that should be applied in assessing such claims.
Background
Ephriam Rodriquez, a bus operator for SEPTA, was terminated from his position after accruing too many negative attendance points, as outlined by his union’s Collective Bargaining Agreement with SEPTA. It was clear that Rodriquez’s final absence, which led to his termination, was caused by a migraine headache. He later requested FMLA leave for this condition. Despite Rodriquez’s attempt to secure FMLA leave by visiting a physician and submitting the necessary paperwork, SEPTA proceeded with a formal hearing that ultimately upheld his termination.
Rodriquez took legal action against SEPTA, alleging retaliation and interference under the FMLA. The District Court granted SEPTA’s motion for judgment by law, overturning a jury verdict that found Rodriquez was entitled to $20,000 in economic damages on his interference claim. To establish an FMLA claim, an employee has to prove that they were entitled to FMLA benefits which their employer prohibited or discouraged them from using. See Sarnowski, v. Air Brooke Limousine, Inc., 509 F.3d 398, 401 (3d Cir. 2007). The fact that Rodriguez was denied benefits was not in dispute. This analysis hinged on determining if Rodriquez’s headaches were a “serious condition” under FMLA at the moment of his absence — a question of entitlement. “Periodic Visits” are defined as at least two visits to a healthcare provider per year for a health condition. Rodriguez’s admission that he had not made “periodic” visits to a healthcare provider, but rather sought medical treatment for migraines only after termination, was fatal to his claims. The court found that Rodriguez did not meet the FMLA’s condition criteria because he failed to establish that he had a “chronic serious health condition” on the day he took leave. Therefore, due to Rodriguez’s failure to meet the “periodic visits” requirement, the court found that Rodriquez did not meet the FMLA’s condition criteria because he failed as a matter of law to establish that he had a “chronic serious health condition” on the day he took leave.
Takeaway
This decision serves as a reminder that the timing of medical treatment (or lack thereof) is pivotal in FMLA cases, and what criteria needs to be met to establish a “chronic serious health condition.”
If you have any questions regarding this case or FMLA requirements, please reach out to your Sheppard Mullin attorney.
