Rager v. Behring
| Decision Date | 10 April 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-1400,99-1400 |
| Citation | 210 F.3d 776 |
| Parties | (7th Cir. 2000) Julie A. RAGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DADE BEHRING, Inc., Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 98 CV 0670--John C. Shabaz, Chief Judge.
Before Posner, Chief Judge, and Coffey and Manion, Circuit Judges.
The Family and Medical Leave Act entitles an eligible employee to up to 12 weeks of leave during any 12 month period because of "a serious health condition." 29 U.S.C. sec. 2612(a)(1)(D). The employer may require certification from the employee's physician (or other health care provider) that the employee indeed has such a condition, 29 U.S.C. sec. 2613(a), but if he does so he must (if the health condition was unforeseeable) give the employee at least 15 calendar days in which to submit it. 29 C.F.R. sec. 825.305. Although the regulations contain a sample certification form, 29 C.F.R. sec. 825 app. B, they do not require the employer to use it; but the employer is required to notify the employee promptly and in writing of the 15 day deadline and the consequences of not complying with it. sec.sec. 825.301, .305. This suit alleges a violation of the 15 day rule. The district judge granted summary judgment for the defendant, and so we must construe the facts as favorably to the plaintiff as the record permits.
On December 15, 1997, Julie Rager, an FMLA- eligible employee of Dade Behring, became scheduled to have surgery a week later to excise an infected gland. She reported her impending absence for the surgery to her immediate supervisor the same day, and three days later discussed the matter with both her supervisor and a member of the company's human resources staff. She was told she'd be eligible for regular sick leave, or for paid short-term disability leave once she had 15 continuous days of absence, and she was given a form to complete if she thought she would qualify for the disability leave. The form required medical documentation. It was also explained to her that she might be eligible for longer, though unpaid, leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and so she was given a "Request for Family Leave" form as well and told that if she decided to seek family leave she would have to fill out still another form, namely a "Certification of Health Care Provider" form. She was not given that form, though it was made clear to her that she couldn't receive either short-term disability leave or family leave without medical documentation.
She dropped off her completed "Request for Family Leave" form on December 20 but didn't provide any medical documentation. The surgery was performed as scheduled on December 22, and the following day, still not having received any medical documentation from Rager, Dade Behring sent her a certified letter repeating the requirement of medical documentation and pointing out that the documentation required by the short- term disability form would suffice. The December 23 letter further informed her that unless she submitted the required documentation by January 12 she would be fired because of the number of unexcused absences from work that she would have accrued by then.
On December 29 the company sent her the "Certification of Health Care Provider" form because she was "requesting a medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act." A letter sent her two days later reiterated that she must submit any required medical documentation by January 12. The deadline passed without her responding, and so she was fired.
Rager argues that the 15 day period of notice to which the Act entitled her began to run on December 31 because that's when she received the "Certification of Health Provider" form; and she was terminated fewer than 15 days later. The company argues that the 15 day period began when Rager requested family leave on December 19, and so ended well before January 12. Neither is correct. Remember that the Act does not require the employer to request medical documentation on a particular form. All that is required is that the employee be informed in writing that he or she has 15 days in which to submit proof of a serious health condition, and of the consequences if it is not submitted within the deadline, which in this case was termination because in the absence of an entitlement under the Family and Medical Leave Act the plaintiff had no excuse for being absent from work from December 22 on.
She was never told in writing in so many words that she had 15 days to submit the medical documentation required for family leave, and it is disputed whether she requested...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marrero v. Camden County Board of Social Services
...it is clear that the employee had actual notice of the FMLA's requirements. 29 C.F.R. § 825.304(c). See also, Rager v. Dade Behring, Inc., 210 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2000) ("[An] employer is required to notify the employee promptly and in writing of the 15 day There is no evidence at this stage......
-
Bradford Hospital v. Shalala
...has revealed that numerous courts have applied equitable tolling to regulatory filing deadlines. See, e.g., Rager v. Dade Behring, Inc., 210 F.3d 776, 779 (7th Cir.2000) (holding that equitable tolling is applicable to a Family and Medical Leave Act regulation which requires the employee to......
-
Caskey v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
...employee never produces the certification, the absences need not be treated as FML. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.311(b); Rager v. Dade Behring, Inc., 210 F.3d 776, 778-79 (7th Cir.2000) (affirming summary judgment for employer when certification was not timely submitted). Caskey appears to argue tha......
-
Peter v. Lincoln Technical Institute, Inc.
...do so despite the employee's diligent, good faith efforts." 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(b) (emphasis supplied).8 See also Roger v. Dade Behring, Inc., 210 F.3d 776, 779 (7th Cir.2000) (finding that the time given to an employee in which to provide requested medical certification is subject to equit......
-
Family and Medical Leave Act
...29 C.F.R. §§825.301(b)(1)(ii), .305(d), an employee who never provides the certification can be discharged. Rager v. Dade Behring, Inc., 210 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2000). See also Townsend-Taylor v. Ameritech Services, Inc., 523 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2008). The employee’s failure to comply may be ......
-
Family and medical leave act
...29 C.F.R. §§825.301(b)(1)(ii), .305(d), an employee who never provides the certification can be discharged. Rager v. Dade Behring, Inc., 210 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2000). See also Townsend‑Taylor v. Ameritech Services, Inc., 523 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2008). The employee’s failure to comply may be ......
-
Family and Medical Leave Act
...29 C.F.R. §§825.301(b)(1)(ii), .305(d), an employee who never provides the certification can be discharged. Rager v. Dade Behring, Inc., 210 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2000). See also Townsend-Taylor v. Ameritech Services, Inc., 523 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2008). The employee’s failure to comply may be ......
-
Family and Medical Leave Act
...29 C.F.R. §§825.301(b)(1)(ii), .305(d), an employee who never provides the certification can be discharged. Rager v. Dade Behring, Inc., 210 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2000). See also Townsend-Taylor v. Ameritech Services, Inc., 523 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2008). The employee’s failure to comply may be ......