SIXTH
CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT FITNESS-FOR-DUTY CERTIFICATIONS
need only State
that the employee is able to return to work.
Facts
of the Case
The Defendant, Camelot Care Centers
(“Camelot”), provided treatment, care, and placement for
abused and neglected children. In 1997, Camelot hired
the plaintiff, Carol Brumbalough, as the Clinical
Director at its local office in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
In 2000, Camelot promoted Brumbalough to the position of
State Clinical Director. As the State Clinical
Director, Brumbalough was responsible for supervising
the local Clinical Directors across the state of
Tennessee. Due to the requirements of her job,
Brumbalough regularly worked over sixty hours a week.
In June of 2001, Brumbalough informed Camelot that due
to various health problems, her doctor required her to
take two to three month off of work to recover. At
that time, Camelot informed the plaintiff that she was
required to submit a fitness-for-duty certification in
order to return to work. Furthermore, Camelot
instructed Brumbalough that she would need
recertification from her doctor after two months of
leave in order to get approval for further FMLA leave.
In July of 2001, Brumbalough informed
Camelot that she was ready to return to work. Camelot
reminded the plaintiff that she needed to provide a
fitness-for-duty certification in order to return to
work. Brumbalough then sent a handwritten note from her
doctor stating:
“She
may return to work on 8/13/01. She should only work a
40-45 hour week and limit her out-of-town travel to 1
day per week.”
Camelot, however, denied ever receiving this letter.
After the deadline for receiving the fitness-for-duty
certification had passed, Camelot terminated Brumbalough
and hired someone to fill the State Clinical Director
position. Brumbalough filed suit against Camelot
alleging Camelot had violated the FMLA by refusing to
reinstate her.
At trial, the district court granted
summary judgment in favor of Camelot finding that
Camelot was entitled to terminate Brumbalough because
she had not submitted a proper fitness-for-duty
certification. Specifically, the district court found
that Brumbalough’s note from her doctor failed to meet
the requirements for a fitness-for-duty certification.
The
Sixth Circuit’s Opinion
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held that the
district court had erred in granting summary judgment
for Camelot. The Court of Appeals looked to 29 C.F.R. §
825.310(c) which states that a fitness-for-duty
certification “need only be a simple statement of an
employee’s ability to return to work.” The Court stated
that a plain reading of this regulation indicated a
certification need only state that the employee is able
to return to work. The court also noted that the
regulation prohibited employers from delaying the
employee’s return to work in order to receive further
information from a health care provider. 29 C.F.R. §
825.310(c). Therefore, the court held that, once the
employer receives a statement that the employee may
return to work, the employer may not delay reinstating
the employee simply because the employee requests more
information. The court held that if the district court
should find that Camelot had received the doctor’s note
then Camelot violated the FMLA by failing to reinstate
Brumbalough. Thus, the court remanded the case to the
district court for further factual findings.
Implications for Employers
The Sixth Circuit’s opinion in
Brumbalough makes it clear that Employers may no
longer refuse to reinstate an employee returning from
FMLA leave who presents a statement from their health
care provider indicating that the employee is able to
return to work. In other words, a statement from the
employee’s health care provider indicating the employee
is able to return to work triggers the employer’s
affirmative duty to reinstate the employee without
delay. However, this FMLA provision can sometimes
lead to a conflict with the ADA, which permits
Employers, in certain situations, to require employees
to submit to and pass medical examinations prior to
returning them to work.