Enica v. Principi (1st Circuit Court of Appeals 10/06/2008)

Enica sued her federal employer, asserting (among other things) two claims for failure to reasonably accommodate her disability under the Rehabilitation Act.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer.  The 1st Circuit reversed as to one claim and affirmed as to the other.  The court concluded that 1) with respect to one claim, Enica did not inform her employer that its accommodation was inadequate, and thus the employer was not responsible for failing to correct its inadequacies; and 2) with respect to the other claim, Enica produced sufficient evidence that the employer failed to provide reasonable accommodation despite repeated requests.

Question for You:  Do you have procedures in place to address reasonable accommodation requests?

For more information or a copy of the case, please contact us at 410-480-7145 or info@impacthrllc.com.

Employee had to reestablish FMLA eligibility for intermittent leave after commencement of new calendar year.

Davis v. Michigan Bell (6th Circuit Court of Appeals 09/29/2008)

Davis sued the employer, asserting various claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  The trail court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer.  The 6th Circuit affirmed.

The primary issue on appeal was whether Davis was an”eligible” employee entitled to benefits under the FMLA.  There was no dispute that she was an eligible employee when she was granted intermittent leave during the final quarter of 2004.  However, the employer measured its 12-month FMLA period according to the calendar year, and required Davis to reestablish that she was an eligible employee as of January 1, 2005.  Davis argued that the eligibility determination made at the commencement of her intermittent leave should have remained valid throughout her intermittent leave until it was exhausted.  The court rejected that argument.

The court concluded, “[w]hen an employee has a chronic health condition for which intermittent FMLA leave has been approved, the leave commences upon the occurrence of the first absence caused by that condition, and it extends to cover every other absence caused by that condition during the same twelve-month FMLA period.”  However, the court also concluded, “[o]nce a new twelve-month FMLA period begins, any additional absences caused by that same chronic condition would constitute a new period of intermittent FMLA leave.”  The court reasoned that, under a contrary approach, “employees would never have to reestablish their eligibility for FMLA leave and would therefore be perpetually entitled to twelve weeks of FMLA leave per year based on a single eligibility determination.”

Question for You:  Does your policy include general provisions of leave under FMLA including information around intermittent leave?

For more information or a copy of the case, please contact us at 410-480-7145 or info@impacthrllc.com.

Above case summaries were provided by LawMemo.Com, publisher of the popular Employment Law Memo.

View other news articles from September 2008