Employers Find Some Relief in Disability Disputes (7/9)

Employers Find Some Relief in Disability Disputes

The concept of a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) has been controversial since it was first announced, and many small business owners have been struggling to determine exactly what circumstances are covered by the legislation since it was ratified.

A survey by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) indicates a majority of HR professionals are also uncertain about coordinating leave under the FMLA, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Further, most respondents report they have difficulty interpreting the definition of a "serious health condition" or "disability" under the Acts.

The SHRM recently filed a brief before the Court of Appeals in efforts to argue that minor medical ailments do not constitute "serious health conditions" under the FMLA. SHRM argues that the Department of Labor's (DOL) inconsistent interpretation of the meaning of "serious health condition," along with recent court decisions, places an unworkable burden on employers to determine who is eligible under the FMLA.

For example, in Gemini, Inc. v. Katherine A. Thorson, a "friend of the court" brief was issued by SHRM arguing that employers need clearer guidance in order to implement FMLA properly. In this case, however, the lower court ruled that the defendant had a "serious health condition" because she met the DOL's incapacity and treatment standards (she missed at least four consecutive days of work and was examined by a doctor twice). Though the defendant suffered only minor medical ailments, the lower court ruled Thorson was still entitled to FMLA protection, as a matter of law, and had been wrongly terminated for her absenteeism. This was a major blow to U.S. employers.

But while the FMLA is still creating administrative nightmares for many companies, employers did find some relief with the Supreme Court's recent ADA ruling. The ruling clarified the meaning of "disability" under the ADA, relieving employers of the burden of having to decide between conflicting court rulings and inconsistent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpretations in order to determine what constitutes a disability under the ADA.

"This decision not only provides much needed guidance to employers to help them comply with the ADA, but it also upholds the original intent of the statute," says Sue Meisinger, senior vice president of SHRM. "Now focus can shift back to the ADA's intended beneficiaries - those who truly have disabilities but who can and want to work and make significant contributions to the success of their organization."

Peter J. Petesch, partner with Ford & Harrison, LLP, in Washington, D.C., adds, "The Court's principled, common-sense approach will facilitate employers' compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, while also protecting those persons who are truly disabled whom Congress intended the ADA to protect."