Budhun v. Reading Hosp. and Med. Ctr. (Summary)

FMLA

Budhun v. Reading Hosp. and Med. Ctr., No. 11-4625 (3d Cir. Aug. 27, 2014)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a district court’s dismissal of an employee’s Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) interference claim against a hospital, holding that there are genuine issues of material fact that a jury must decide. Plaintiff, employee, worked at defendant, hospital, as a credentialing assistant. The employee broke a bone in her hand which limited her ability to type at her normal pace, which resulted in the employee taking FMLA leave for a week. Prior to returning to the hospital, the employee saw a physician and obtained a note stating she could return to work with no restrictions. The hospital informed her that due to her broken hand, she would not be able to perform her typing duties at her expected capacity. The employee went back on FMLA leave, and visited her physician to have him complete the required FMLA leave certification form. On the form, the physician indicated that the employee was unable to perform “any of his/her job functions.” The employee’s FMLA leave expired without her physician clearing her to return to work; therefore, the hospital informed her she would be terminated. The employee brought this action claiming that the hospital interfered with her right to be restored to her position, as granted by the FMLA, after her first attempt to return to work.

The court held that there were genuine issues of material fact that needed to be decided by a jury; specifically, whether the employee was capable, and cleared by her healthcare provider, to return to work. Relying on the FMLA regulations, the court stated that the only way for an employer to keep an employee from returning to work for not being able to perform the essential functions of her job is to provide a list of the essential functions at the time the employee takes the FMLA leave. Additionally, the court noted the inconsistencies in the physician’s notes and held that these issues are appropriate for a reasonable jury to decide.