Did Citing ‘Disabilities’ Enable Employee to Sue for FMLA Interference?

What Do You Think?

Washington, DC (WorkersCompensation.com) – An employee needs to point to a serious health condition to bring an FMLA interference claim. One case addresses the question of whether merely alleging that he has a disability is sufficient for an employee to meet that standard.

The employee stated he was terminated for taking FMLA leave for various health conditions, which he alleged were disabilities within the meaning of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. He said he suffered epileptic seizures, insomnia, depression, anxiety and panic attacks, intractable migraines, gastroenterological complications from prior surgery, and a cervical and lumbar radiculopathy and lumbar disc herniation.

He said he took the leave because of an episodic flare-up of his “disabilities” and was fired after four days of not going to work. He did not state in his claim that he received any regular in-person treatment for any of his conditions at the time. Nor did he mention which of his disabilities caused the flare-up.

To state an FMLA interference claim, a plaintiff must allege that:

1. He was entitled to take leave because he had a “serious health condition;”
2. He gave his employer adequate notice of his intention to take leave; and 
3. His employer denied or otherwise interfered with his right to take leave

The company asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the employee failed to make out a viable case.

Did the employee have a plausible FMLA interference claim?

A. Yes. The health conditions he said he had were clearly “serious.”

B. No. It was not enough to allege that he had a “disability” within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Dickerson v. Grant Leading Technology, Inc.., No. 23-867 (RDM) (D.D.C. 11/15/24), which held that the employee failed to allege that he had a “serious health condition” within the meaning of the FMLA.

While the employee repeatedly referenced his disabilities, the court explained, a disability under the Rehabilitation Act is not the same thing as a serious health condition under the FMLA.

Under the FMLA, an illness qualifies as a "serious health condition" if it involves either 

1. Inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility or 
2. Continuing treatment by a health care provider

A disability, on the other hand, is a physical or mental health impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.

The court noted that the employee did not assert that he had inpatient care for any of his conditions when he took leave. Nor did he claim that he had continuing treatment, such in-person treatment two or more times within 30 days of the first day he was unable to work. 

Instead, he merely stated that he suffered a flare-up related to his disabilities, without identifying which of his disabilities caused the flare-up.

Holding that the employee failed to state a viable interference claim, the court dismissed the case.

Share This Article: