Sup Ct Denies Review Of Adequacy Of Employee's Notice To Employer That She Needed FMLA Leave For Depression
An employee failed to put her employer on notice that she needed Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave for a serious health condition--her depression--the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals previously held in a case in which the United States Supreme Court has now denied certiorari.
Because depression, like many
mental illnesses, is a condition with many variations, the employee would have
needed to apprise her employer of more than the mere fact that she had been
diagnosed with something called "depression" to put them on notice that she had
a serious health condition. Even if, as the employee asserted, she told her
supervisor that she would be absent for "help with my medication still, I'm
still having a lot of side effects from what they put me on," and even if her
supervisors knew that she was "depressed" and that she had to leave early one
day because of problems with new medication, she provided no details about her
depression, its severity, or any incapacity that it might give rise to,
sufficient to indicate that it, as opposed to the side effects from her
medication, was serious. The side effects, the Court of Appeals noted, were not
covered by the FMLA because there was no evidence that they were a "chronic
health condition."
The Eighth Circuit's interpretation of the FMLA was
unsupported by any precedent, statute, or federal regulation, the employee
contended in her petition for certiorari. The distinction applied by the Eighth
Circuit between the depression and the side effects from medication for the
depression was both unique in FMLA law and a matter of widespread concern for
the future of the FMLA itself, the employee asserted. It was arbitrary for the
Court of Appeals to separate the effects of treatment from the reason for
treatment, the petition argued, noting that the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) has rejected such an approach in the context of examining
reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
stating in its enforcement guidance that "the side effects caused by the
medication that an employee must take because of the disability are limitations
resulting from the disability." According to the employee, no less a standard is
appropriate under the FMLA.
Rask v. Fresenius Medical Care North America
Read the case below