Editor's Note
Migraines and Protected Leave
Before I experienced migraines, I just thought they were just headaches that hurt more. That doesn't begin to cover it. For me, a migraine is a headache plus every nerve in my body is turned on high alert, plus all my senses are heightened. Reality feels like endless fingernails on a chalkboard tangled in barbed wire with smoke alarm dead battery alerts. (See also Las Vegas.)
When turning on a lamp makes me startle in pain and playing a video in the other room hurts my ears, I do not work. Thinking logical thoughts and stringing words together is not possible. My brain is full of static and everything hurts.
So, when I saw a court had decided migraines were not a serious medical condition for Family Medical Leave, I was confounded. (Confounded is the word of the week. I just decided.)
It turns out that the facts of that case mattered a lot. The court didn't say migraines couldn't be a serious medical condition; they just weren't in this situation. I'll let you read the description and great analysis of the case in the article below.
I also researched migraines as a serious health condition under the FMLA and a disability under the ADA. The DOL's FMLA fact sheet specifically mentions migraines as an example of a serious health condition, which means it's not disputed. And one of JAN's Accommodation and Compliance series is all about when migraines are a disability under the ADA, and cites the EEOC.
If you don't know much about JAN, it stands for Job Accommodation Network. JAN is a service of the Office of Disability Employment Policy of the Department of Labor. There are great resources for employers on how to engage in the interactive process and ideas for effective accommodations that work for everyone. It's also handy for compliance with state disability discrimination laws, most of which are expected to survive the recent election. JAN is worth exploring.
Here's more on the case where migraines didn't qualify as a serious health condition for FMLA leave.
- Heather Bussing
On October 11, 2024, in the matter of Ephriam Rodriquez v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the legal standards for establishing a “serious health condition” under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). This decision highlights what constitutes a “serious health condition” under the FMLA, and the standards that should be applied in assessing such claims.
Background
Ephriam Rodriquez, a bus operator for SEPTA, was terminated from his position after accruing too many negative attendance points, as outlined by his union’s Collective Bargaining Agreement with SEPTA. It was undisputed that his final absence, which contributed to his termination, was due to a migraine headache, an ailment for which he later sought FMLA leave. Despite Rodriquez’s attempt to secure FMLA leave by visiting a physician and submitting the necessary paperwork, SEPTA proceeded with a formal hearing that ultimately upheld his termination.
Rodriquez took legal action against SEPTA, alleging retaliation and interference under the FMLA. While a jury found in favor of Rodriquez on the interference claim, awarding him $20,000 in economic damages, the District Court later granted SEPTA’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, overturning the jury’s verdict.
The Decision
The Third Circuit’s review focused on whether the district court erred in its judgment as a matter of law regarding the FMLA interference claim. To establish an FMLA interference claim, an employee must prove that he or she was entitled to FMLA benefits that the employer discouraged or prohibited the employee from using. See Sarnowski v. Air Brooke Limousine, Inc., 510 F.3d 398, 401 (3d Cir. 2007). There was no dispute that Rodriguez was denied benefits. The key to this analysis was determining whether Rodriquez’s migraines constituted a “serious health condition” under the FMLA at the time of his absence—an entitlement issue.
The court reiterated the stringent criteria for what constitutes a “serious health condition,” emphasizing the requirement for “periodic visits” to a healthcare provider. “Periodic visits” are considered as visiting a healthcare provider at least twice a year for the health condition. However, fatal to Rodriguez’s claims was his admission that he did not make “periodic visits” to a healthcare provider but, rather, he did not seek medical treatment for his migraines until after his termination. In fact, Rodriguez’s first and only visit to a doctor for migraines was to obtain FMLA paperwork nearly a month after the final absence which resulted in his termination. Therefore, due to Rodriguez’s failure to meet the “periodic visits” requirement, the court found that Rodriquez did not meet the FMLA’s condition criteria because he failed as a matter of law to establish that he had a “chronic serious health condition” on the day he took leave.
Takeaway
This decision serves as a reminder that the timing of medical treatment (or lack thereof) is pivotal in FMLA cases, and what criteria needs to be met to establish a “chronic serious health condition.”
