Pregnancy: FMLA and ADA Applications
watrsflo
129 Posts
I know that Pregnancy is considered a "serious health condition" under FMLA; however, is it also considered a "physical...disability" under the EEOC's ADA regs?
One of our employees is requesting FMLA leave related to that employee's 23-year old daughter's pregnancy -- the daughter lives independently on her own and not with the parent.
One of our employees is requesting FMLA leave related to that employee's 23-year old daughter's pregnancy -- the daughter lives independently on her own and not with the parent.
Comments
Can secretary get FMLA leave to care for pregnant daughter?
The First Circuit (which covers New Hampshire) recently determined that a lower court had improperly dismissed the claim of an employee who was denied a requested, unpaid Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave to care for her adult daughter with medical complications related to her pregnancy.
Facts
Gladys Navarro worked as a secretary for Pfizer Corporation. During the course of her employment, she requested an unpaid leave of absence under the FMLA. Her plan was to travel to Germany to assist her adult daughter and her two grandchildren.
When Navarro requested the leave, she provided Pfizer with a note from her daughter's attending physician. In the note, the physician reported that her daughter was in the 36th week of her pregnancy and, because of high blood pressure, required bed rest to carry the baby to full term.
Pfizer denied Navarro's request for leave. She departed for Germany anyway. The company sent her a letter directing her to immediately return to work. When she did not, she was fired. She then filed a claim against the company, asserting that it had unlawfully denied her FMLA leave and unlawfully fired her for attempting to exercise her rights under the FMLA.
The law
Under the FMLA, an eligible employee may take unpaid leave to care for a spouse, parent, or child who suffers from a serious health condition. The Act differentiates between children under 18 years of age and those 18 and older. If the child is under 18, then the parent needs to show only that he has a serious health condition. If the child is 18 or older, the parent must also show that the child is incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability.
Thus, because Navarro's daughter was older than 18, the mom had to show that her daughter (1) had a serious health condition, (2) was incapable of self-care, and (3) was incapacitated because of a mental or physical disability.
A "serious health condition" is "an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves . . . continuing treatment by a health care provider." This definition can include problems related to pregnancy. Given the physician's note, the appeals court found that Navarro had presented evidence that her daughter had a serious health condition.
The court also concluded that Navarro had offered evidence that her daughter was unable to care for herself: "[H]er physician confined her to bed for the remainder of her pregnancy. At a bare minimum, such a prescription would appear to signal the patient's need for active assistance or supervision in the performance of everyday activities such as cooking, cleaning, shopping, and doing housework."
The court then addressed the most significant issue -- whether complications from the pregnancy could be considered a "disability" under the FMLA. The law's regulations adopted by the secretary of labor incorporate regulations adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under the ADA. Under the ADA, a disability is an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of an individual.
The court concluded that Navarro's daughter had an impairment -- high blood pressure. According to the court, the source of the impairment was irrelevant. Even if its source was relevant, the court concluded that while pregnancy itself may not be an impairment, complications resulting from the pregnancy can constitute an impairment.
In reaching that conclusion, the court specifically rejected a 1995 New Hampshire decision that had found that pregnancy- related conditions aren't impairments under the ADA. The court also concluded that Navarro presented evidence that her daughter's impairment affected major life activities, including working and caring for herself.
The next question was whether the specified impairment substantially limited the identified major life activities. Pfizer had argued, and the trial court agreed, that an impairment lasting no more than a matter of weeks cannot substantially limit a major life activity.
The appeals court rejected Pfizer's argument as well as the trial court's reliance on EEOC interpretive guidelines in making its decision on the issue. The appeals court instead concluded that it wasn't bound by the EEOC's interpretive guidelines and that while duration of the impairment was a factor to be considered, an impairment of "modest duration" could be regarded, in some cases, as substantially limiting for FMLA purposes. In reaching that conclusion, the court of appeals emphasized the differences between the ADA and the FMLA.
In light of this different standard, the appeals court sent the case back to the trial court for reconsideration. Gladys Navarro, a/k/a Gladys Navarro Pomares, et al., v. Pfizer Corporation, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, No. 00-1856, 8/20/01.
Bottom line
Simply stated, an employee who seeks FMLA leave to care for an adult child with complications related to her pregnancy may be entitled to the leave. We will keep an eye out for future decisions in this area.
Copyright 2002 M. Lee Smith Publishers LLC
NEW HAMPSHIRE EMPLOYMENT LAW LETTER should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only. Anyone needing specific legal advice should consult an attorney.
Your response is right on point for the clarification I need!!
...and thanks to all who responded; this Forum is a great resource!!!
I don't understand his logic about comping the ee since he cared for his wife who had a serious health condition. Not to minimize the event of pregnancy, but, an ingrown toenail surgery sidelining one for three and a half days is also considered a serious health condition under FMLA definitions. If your guy is suggesting you comp or not comp employees based on some slippery definition in the company of who went to what extent to put themselves out and care for another, get ready for a downhill ride!
>extend to the parents of adult children WHO ARE LIVING INDEPENDENTLY AND ARE OR HAVE BEEN PREGNANT.
Are you saying that IF the pregnant daughter lives at home with her parent, the employee -- as a member of the immediate family within the same household -- the eligibility is different?
(Add to that, there is no husband in the picture). ?
If I had the situation arise that you describe, I would grant the employee FMLA, but only if there is evidence that the mother is bedridden or the doctor suggests she needs help of a nature unusual to normal delivery and post delivery. But this would not include an employee whose daughter in Baton Rouge had triplets, taking the bus down to Cajun Country to spruce up the nursery and write thank you notes. Nor would it cover the ee who wants to 'be with her daughter' so she can rock the baby and the mom can get some sleep. Somewhere a line exists.