Publications

More than three years after the enactment of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), employers continue to have trouble navigating its complex requirements. Recent court cases show that properly identifying what constitutes a “serious health condition” is the key to preventing and defending against FMLA claims.

Broadly stated, a serious health condition involves

1. any period of incapacity in connection with inpatient care;
2. a period of incapacity of more than three calendar days that also involves continuing treatment by a health care provider; or
3. continuing treatment by a health care provider for a chronic or long-term health condition. Courts have carefully scrutinized these standards in FMLA cases.

In Johnson v. Primerica, the Court found that an employee’s asthmatic son did not have a serious health condition at the time the employee was absent from work. Because there was no evidence that the son was acutely ill, undergoing complex therapy, or required to stay home from school at the relevant times, the employer was within its rights when it terminated the employee for the absences he claimed were related to his son’s asthma.

Employers must assess each absence on a case by case basis. Although the Johnson court found that the child’s asthma did not qualify the employee for FMLA leave in that particular instance, there may be times when a child’s asthma is serious enough to trigger an FMLA obligation. Each specific request for leave must be examined in light of the standards defined in the FMLA and its regulations before an employer can designate an absence as FMLA leave or as a nonqualifying absences.