Nurse seeks disability leave while employed at another hospital.
CASE ON POINT: Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central, 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 177 -CA (2004)
ISSUE: There is always someone looking to take advantage of the system. In this extraordinary case, a nurse was alleging she had been wrongfully denied medical leave benefits by the hospital that employed her. However, all the while she was performing the same job duties at another hospital.
CASE FACTS: Antonina Lonicki was employed by Sutter Health Central (Sutter). She maintained that Sutter violated the California Family Rights Act (CalFRA) by denying her request for medical leave. CalFRA entitles an employee to a leave of absence when "except for leave taken for disability on account of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions," the employee's "own serious health condition ... makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of that employee ..." The hospital moved for summary judgment on the grounds that, inter alia, "she was not suffering from a serious health conditions," which would entitle her to a statutory medical leave." In support of its motion, the hospital presented undisputed evidence that throughout the relevant time period, the plaintiff was successfully performing functions of an identical job for Kaiser Hospital (Kaier) in the same geographic area. The plaintiff appealed.
COURT'S OPINION: The Court of Appeals of California affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The court found, inter alia, that the Superior Court correctly concluded that throughout the relevant time period, the plaintiff was successfully performing functions of an identical job at Kaiser in the same geographic area. Indeed, the plaintiff acknowledged that the duties of her job with Kaiser were "about the same" as the duties of the job at the hospital, and that she was capable of performing her duties at the hospital if she were assigned to a "less stressful shift. The court agreed that the Superior Court correctly concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to CalFRA medical leave because the undisputed evidence established that at the same time she demanded leave from Sutter, she was performing the same job functions for Kaiser. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that CalFRA is employer-specific. Thus, she was not entitled to medical leave of absence from Sutter.
LEGAL COMMENTARY: Under California law, the applicable provisions of CalFRA provided that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to grant a request of an employee to take a total of 12 work weeks in 12 months for "family care and medical leave." For summary judgment purposes, there was no dispute that SuRer was an employer subject to CalFRA. Mike Egan, Lonicki's union representative, negotiated with Steve Jatala, the hospital's director. As a result, Jatala agreed to approve the Lonicki's absence until August 21, 1999. He approved the absence as paid time off rather than medical leave because (1) he had been unable to obtain information from the plaintiff's doctor, (2) he was aware that the plaintiff was continuing to work for Kaiser, and (3) Dr. Cohen concluded that she was able to return to work at SuRer. Jatala then told the plaintiff to return to work on August 23. The plaintiff previously had informed Jatala that she would not return until August 27, and she asserted that she did not give Egan the authority to agree otherwise. The plaintiff did not return to the hospital until August 27. She went there to extend her absence for another month. Upon arriving, she was told that she had been fired as a result of her failure to return to work on August 23. The plaintiff filed suit against the hospital asserting, inter alia, a violation of CalFRA. In appropriate circumstances, CalFRA requires an employer to grant a medical leave of absence if an employee's serious health condition makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of that employee. The court noted that the pivotal provision in law, which defines family care and medical leave includes "leave because of an employee's own serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of that employee, except for leave taken for disability on account of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition." The hospital argued (and the trial court agreed) that the plaintiff was not unable to perform the functions of her position because she had successfully performed the very same functions for another employer during the time in question. The plaintiff, on the other hand, asserted that the legal standard must be employer-specific, and that the fact that she was performing the functions of her job for Kaiser did not preclude her from being entitled to medical leave of absence from Sutter. The court disagreed!
