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.”