|
07-2166 Townsend-Taylor v. Ameritech Services, Inc.
Employment
FMLA
An employer is not obligated to give employees claiming FMLA leave an opportunity to rectify compliance deficiencies.
"He contends instead that FPU (or Ameritech, which concedes that it cannot shirk its responsibilities under the Act by outsourcing the processing of FMLA applications) should have given him a chance to rectify the deficiencies in his attempt to excuse his failure to comply with the May 24 deadline-a chance to get a more informative letter from his doctor, for example. The company's failure to give him that chance, he argues, interfered with his rights under the FMLA. But that is stretching the concept of 'interference' too far, and would make deadlines ineffectual. Every time an employee submitted deficient proof of extenuating circumstances for his failure to meet the filing deadline, his employer would be obliged to give him more time to make up the deficiency. This would mean that 'an employer could never set a real deadline for the return of a medical certification. In effect, whenever an employee failed to return a medical certification within the appropriate time period, the employer would be required to notify the employee of that fact and provide the employee with an opportunity to cure the deficiency by allowing the employee to submit the certification within a new, extended deadline-a scenario that could, in theory, repeat itself ad infinitum. The bottom line, therefore, would be that the concept of a "deadline" under § 825.305(d) would have no meaningful significance and no actual consequences. This would, in effect, create an imbalance where the "legitimate interests of employers" [would] no longer receive the protections that Congress presumably intended to provide when it enacted the FMLA.' Urban v. Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc., 393 F.3d 572, 577 (5th Cir. 2004). See also Novak v. MetroHealth Medical Center, 503 F.3d 572, 579 (6th Cir. 2007). Taylor was given a 'reasonable opportunity' to cure the deficiency; no more was required. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(d)."
Affirmed.
07-2166 Townsend-Taylor v. Ameritech Services, Inc.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Randa, J., Posner, J.
Case Details
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||







