This series, beginning here, explores the top ten ways that employers deny employees their medical leave rights.

#6 – Instituting A Maximum Leave Policy

Many employers have “maximum leave” policies, under which employees are automatically terminated after they have been on leave for a certain period of time. These can violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Simply put: a maximum-leave policy does not satisfy an employer’s obligation to engage in the interactive process and provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee who needs additional leave. (See EEOC, Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act (May 9, 2016).) This is the case even if the amount of leave time the employer permits is seemingly generous (for example, permitting employees on short-term disability to be out on leave for a year).

The ADA and FEHA require that an employer assess each disability accommodation request on a case-by-case basis. This means that it is unlawful to simply apply an inflexible maximum leave policy to an employee with a disability who needs more leave. Instead, the employer must provide additional leave unless granting the time off would cause an undue hardship or there is another effective accommodation that will allow that employee to work.

What this means to a worker who needs additional disability-related leave time: …

This series, beginning here, explores the top ten ways that employers deny employees their medical leave rights.

#5 – Failing To Treat A Request For Leave As Protected

When an employee needs medical leave, he should provide notice sufficient to make the employer aware that he needs the leave, as well as the anticipated timing and duration of the leave. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11091.) However, the employee need not use any legal terms or buzzwords to request medical leave. As the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) regulations confirm:

The employee need not expressly assert rights under CFRA or FMLA, or even mention CFRA or FMLA, to meet the notice requirement; however, the employee must state the reason the leave is needed, such as, for example, the expected birth of a child or for medical treatment. The mere mention of “vacation,” other paid time off, or resignation does not render the notice insufficient, provided the underlying reason for the request is CFRA-qualifying, and the employee communicates that reason to the employer. The employer should inquire further of the employee if necessary to determine whether the employee is requesting CFRA leave and to obtain necessary information concerning the leave (i.e., commencement date, expected duration, and other permissible information). An employee has an obligation to respond to an employer’s questions designed to determine whether an absence is potentially CFRA-qualifying. Failure to respond to permissible employer inquiries regarding the leave request may result in denial of CFRA protection if the employer is unable to determine whether the leave is CFRA-qualifying.

(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11091.)

Oftentimes, even when employers know that the employee needs time off for a CFRA/FMLA- or ADA/FEHA-qualifying reason, they may claim that …

This series, beginning here, explores the top ten ways that employers deny employees their medical leave rights.

#2 – Failing to Consider All Medical Leave Rights Together

Each of the leave laws that protect California employees operate independently of each other. This means that “[a]n employer must therefore provide leave under whichever statutory provision provides the greater rights to employees.” (29 C.F.R. § 825.702(a).) For example, the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) allows an employer to place an employee returning from a covered leave in an “equivalent” position. (29 C.F.R. § 825.215.) In contrast, under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), an employee who is granted leave as a reasonable accommodation is “entitled to return to his/her same position unless the employer demonstrates that holding open the position would impose an undue hardship.” (See EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the ADA (Oct. 17, 2002), at Q&A 18.) Therefore, if an employee on a medical leave is covered by FMLA, the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), the ADA, and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the employer would need to reinstate her to her original position following a return from a medical leave, absent the employer demonstrating undue hardship.

The FMLA regulations, at 29 C.F.R. section 825.702, provide several additional examples of the interplay between the ADA and FMLA, including the following…

All too often, when employees with disabilities request medical leave, employers fail to properly respond to the requests. They may deny medical leaves to which employees are entitled, may impose requirements that are not lawful, or may fail to honor employees’ reinstatement rights. Over the next few weeks, this series will explore the top ten ways that employers deny employees their medical leave rights.

#1 – Failing to Consider Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation

When employees with disabilities request medical leaves, employers sometimes make the mistake of considering their obligations only under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. section 2601 et seq., and California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), Government Code section 12945.2. Employers may wrongly believe that if employees do not meet the eligibility criteria under the FMLA and CFRA, or if they have already exhausted their FMLA/CFRA leave, they are simply ineligible for job-protected medical leave.

The law is clear, however, that leave can be a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. section 12101, and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Government Code section 12940 et seq. (See, e.g., Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 215, 226 [holding that “a finite leave can be a reasonable accommodation under FEHA, provided it is likely that at the end of the leave, the employee would be able to perform his or her duties”]; Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (9th Cir. 1999) 164 F.3d 1243 [“Even an extended medical leave, or an extension of an existing leave period, may be a reasonable accommodation if it does not pose an undue hardship on the employer.”]; EEOC, Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“EEOC Leave Guidance”) (May 9, 2016); 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630 App. § 1630.2(o) [identifying as possible reasonable accommodations “permitting the use of accrued paid leave or providing additional unpaid leave for necessary treatment”].) Note that the FEHA looks to the ADA to provide a “floor of protection,” with the FEHA providing equal or greater protections to employees. (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12926.1.) For that reason, federal authorities are helpful in exploring the minimum protections afforded to employees.

ADA/FEHA leave often covers situations where FMLA and CFRA leave do not apply…