Employment Law Observer

A recent decision issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court offers up a good reminder that what employers may consider FMLA abuse may not in fact be FMLA abuse under the law. That's exactly the scenario that played out in Richard A. DaPrato vs. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently explained that an employee’s inconvenience from a neutral workplace policy or the employer’s discretionary denial of benefits cannot support a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), or the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

Working full-time hours is an essential function of a full-time job, right? Not necessarily, said the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a Hostettler v. The College of Wooster. When the job can be done on a reduced schedule, at least in the short term, employers have a duty to accommodate.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently determined that an Illinois Sheriff’s Department did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by declining to provide a deputy his requested accommodation, an SUV, and instead transferring him to a position that did not require driving. The deputy had alleged the Department’s failed to accommodate him by refusing to provide him with an SUV, then retaliated against him by transferring him to a courthouse duty position.

A “100-percent healed” policy refers to a practice or procedure that mandates that an employee be released to work by his physician without any restrictions before he may return to work. For example, if an employee who took FMLA leave for carpal tunnel surgery was released to return to work with a reasonable restriction, e.g., 10 minute break after every hour of prolonged typing, a 100-percent healed policy would prevent the employee from returning to work, perhaps altogether if the restriction becomes permanent.

In a huge win for Wisconsin employers, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the longstanding version of the inference method followed by the Labor Industry Review Commission (LIRC) to determine intent in disability discrimination cases involving conduct that manifests from the employee’s disability. It replaced LIRC’s method with a two-part inquiry that requires employees to prove (1) the employer took an adverse employment action against him or her because of conduct caused by his or her disability, and (2) the employer knew the employee’s conduct was caused by his disability.

Many times, employers evaluate disability claims by simply checking the boxes. It’s easy to develop tunnel vision, especially when the employer feels the issue is narrowly defined by an existing law or policy, e.g., a law or employer policy requiring that certain employees be vaccinated. However, this narrow frame of mind may cause employers to miss the complete picture. A recent 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (DE, NJ, PA) decision illustrates the consequences of missing the big picture. In Ruggiero v. Mount Nittany Medical Center, the court addressed the interplay between a hospital’s vaccination policy and the ADA, holding held an employee’s ADA claim could proceed because the hospital failed to engage in the interactive process. The Court held the hospital had a duty to engage in the process once aware of her disability and request for accommodation, regardless of its policy requiring that all employees be vaccinated.

A recent Southern District of California court decision provides California employers with additional guidance on what constitutes a reasonable accommodation.

Last week the Seventh Circuit dealt a blow to the EEOC's continued position that medical leave is a reasonable accommodation when the leave is (1) of a definite, time-limited duration; (2) re-quested in advance; and (3) likely to enable the employee to perform the essential job functions upon return. The panel rejected that position, noting it glossed over the length of the requested leave, improperly transforming the ADA into "an open-ended extension of the FMLA."

The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (“Department”) recently released its guidance on the tax implications of the New York Paid Family Leave Benefits (“PLF”) law for New York employees, employers, and insurance carriers. Effective January 1, 2018, PFL will provide eligible employees with up to 8 weeks of pay for a leave of absence when the leave is necessary to care for a family member’s serious health condition, care for or bond with a new child, or to help with family responsibilities when the employee’s spouse, domestic partner, child or parent is called to active military duty. The weeks available for paid leave will increase each year until 2021, with ten weeks available 2019-2020 and twelve in 2021 and subsequent years.

You have complied with the Family Medical Leave Act by allowing an employee with a serious medical condition 12 weeks of leave. You even provided a few additional weeks even though he has exhausted all available leave. When the employee asks for three more weeks, and you think to yourself “the company has met its legal obligations and can terminate, right?” Wrong—according to the EEOC.

On Monday, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") issued a decision in Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Marketing, holding that an employee may sue her employer for handicap discrimination based on her status as a medical marijuana patient.

The converging paths of the Family Medical Leave Act's (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ranks among the most difficult legal issues for employers to safely traverse. Employers should think twice before terminating an employee who cannot return to work after 12 weeks of FMLA leave. This is because courts across the country have held that additional leave may be a necessary reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The question then becomes, how much additional leave does one need to provide an employee before he or she is no longer protected by the ADA.

Employers in Oakland, California take note: A voter-approved measure raising Oakland's minimum wage and creating sick leave requirements for workers in the City went into effect this week. If you have employees in Oakland, review your policies and practices to make sure you are in compliance!