Thomas Paschos & Associates, P.C.
Haddonfield, New Jersey
In Budhun v. Reading Hospital and Medical Center, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16541 (3d Cir. Pa. August 27, 2014), Ms. Budhun worked for Reading Hospital in a clerical position that required her to be typing approximately 60 percent of the time. In an accident unrelated to work, plaintiff broke the bone in her hand restricting the full use of her hand and fingers for typing. On August 2, 2010, plaintiff arrived at work with a splint and received an email from the human resources department telling her that her injury prevented her from “working full duty” with FMLA documents attached.
Budhun received medical attention and, by email dated August 12, 2010, submitted a portion of her completed leave of absence paperwork and a note from her doctor informing Reading Hospital that she could return to work on August 16, 2010 with no restrictions. Upon returning to work that day, the human resources department emailed Ms. Budhun and indicated that she would need to work at full capacity, which wouldn’t be possible without full use of her fingers.
Ms. Budhun then had various doctor appointments and her physician advised the hospital that she would be out on leave through November 9, 2010. Reading Hospital approved her FMLA through September 23, 2010 and approved non-FMLA leave through November 9, 2010. However, on September 25, 2010, two days after her FMLA leave expired, the hospital filled Budhun’s position.
Budhun brought suit alleging FMLA interference and retaliation claims. After discovery closed, Reading moved for summary judgment on both of Budhun's claims, and the District Court granted the motion. It held that Reading was entitled to summary judgment on Budhun's interference claim because "[s]he was never medically cleared to return to work and . . . a doctor's note was never provided to defendant." It also concluded that Budhun was never entitled to the protections of the FMLA because she claimed that she was fully capable of working at the time that she attempted to return to work on August 16, 2010. The District Court granted summary judgment on Budhun's retaliation claim because it determined that Budhun could not establish a prima facie case as a matter of law. It held that Budhun suffered no adverse employment action because Budhun was medically unable to return to work at the conclusion of her FMLA leave. Plaintiff appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the hospital, holding that a jury could find that the note plaintiff submitted from her doctor stating that she would be able to return to work could trigger the hospital’s responsibility to reinstate her and that the hospital interfered with that right when it told her that she couldn’t return.
The court held that Budhun presented sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find that she invoked her right to return to work on August 16, 2010 and that the hospital interfered with that exercise. The court noted that the FMLA permits an employer to request that an employee provide a “fitness-for-duty” certification before returning to work. An employee’s healthcare provider must merely certify that the employee is able to resume work. An employer, however, may require that the certification address the employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of her job, but only if it gives the employee a list of essential functions. Because the hospital did not provide Budhun with such a list, her fitness-for-duty certification, which stated that she could return to work with no restrictions, was based on the job description that Budhun gave her doctor. Rather than contact her physician, as Budhun authorized it to do, Reading Hospital concluded that she was not ready to return without restrictions since she could not type using all of her fingers. This, the court held, was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Budhun attempted to invoke her right to return to work, and Reading Hospital interfered with that right.
For more information about the South New Jersey law firm of Thomas Paschos & Associates, P.C., please visit the International Society of Primerus Law Firms.
Copies of the full text of any of the cases discussed in this Newsletter may be obtained by calling the firm. The articles contained in this Newsletter are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice.
The Paschos Law Update Newsletter September 2014