FMLA Certification June 24, 2015 New Third Circuit Ruling on FMLA Certification June 22, 2015. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling on FMLA Certification. The court ruled that an employer interferes with an employee’s rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA“) if it does not allow the employee a chance to correct a deficient request-for-leave medical certification. The FMLA protects certain workers’ jobs for a 12-week period if the employee or an immediate family member has a serious medical condition. In order to receive the legal protection of their job, the employee must meet FMLA certification requirements. The employee must have worked for that employer for more than a year and, during the past year, worked a minimum of 1,250 hours. Small employers (less than 50 full-time workers within a 75-mile radius) are not required to provide any job protection for medical leave. When an employee requests FMLA Leave, her employer may ask for FMLA certification, which is documentation from her doctor which states (1) the date on which the serious health condition began; (2) the probable duration of the condition; (3) relevant medical facts; (4) a statement that the employee is unable to perform the functions of her position; (5) the dates and duration of any planned medical treatment; and (6) the expected duration of the leave. In Hansler v. Lehigh Valley Hospital network, Deborah Hansler, a hospital employee, began experiencing shortness of breath, nausea, and vomiting. She submitted a request for intermittent leave along with a brief medical certification, which predicted she would need the leave for one month. After she took five days of leave during the course of a month, the hospital terminated her for excessive absenteeism. Ms. Hansler brought a lawsuit against her former employer claiming violation of her rights under the FMLA. The hospital argued that, because Ms. Hansler’s request for leave indicated that her undiagnosed condition would last for a month only and she had no right to correct the FMLA certification, she did not have a serious medical condition that entitled her to job protection. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals did not accept the hospital’s argument and held that if an employer finds the FMLA certification to be vague, ambiguous, or non-responsive, it must give the employee a chance to cure any deficiencies or risk violating the employee’s rights. Click here to review the Hansler v. Lehigh Valley Hospital Network Third Circuit Precedential Opinion.
Marriage Equality May 21, 2014 U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III Issues Opinion on Marriage Equality Lawsuit. May 20, 2014. In a victory for the plaintiffs, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III of the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued an order striking down Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriage and the recognition of valid same-sex marriages performed in other states. Judge Jones ruled that Pennsylvania’s law barring marriage equality is unconstitutional as a violation of both the due process and equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He wrote, “By virtue of this ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the Commonwealth.” Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-cv-1861, was filed July 9, 2013 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, volunteer counsel from Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudline & Schiller, and University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Seth Kreimer. The suit was brought on behalf of 21 Pennsylvanians seeking the right to marry or for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to recognize their out-of-state marriages. The lawsuit challenged a law passed by the General Assembly in 1996 that restricts marriage to the union of one man and one woman and denies recognition of valid same-sex marriages performed in other states. Marriage equality has gained momentum since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2013 that legally married same-sex couples are eligible for federal benefits. Judge Jones’ decision made Pennsylvania the 19th U.S. state where same-sex marriage is permitted. This decision affected the rights of same-sex couples in the employment arena — including the availability of spousal benefits and eligibility for filing state taxes as a married couple.
