Budhun v. Reading Hospital & Medical Center
765 F.3d 245
3rd Cir.2014Background
- Budhun, employed by Reading/BHP as a credentialing assistant, claimed FMLA interference and retaliation and sought to amend to add an ADA claim.
- Reading granted FMLA leave to Budhun with eligibility and certification requirements; Budhun had a prior final written warning for tardiness in January 2010.
- Budhun took two segments of FMLA leave in spring 2010; she later sustained a hand injury on July 30, 2010, leading to further FMLA leave discussions.
- In August 2010, Budhun indicated she could return with restrictions; Reading reiterated that return required full capacity and later extended/adjusted leave.
- Reading replaced Budhun with Rushow in September 2010 after determining Budhun could not return by the deadline; Budhun remained on leave through November 9, 2010 and did not contact Reading thereafter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Reading interfere with Budhun's right to reinstatement after FMLA leave? | Budhun invoked return rights on Aug 16; she could perform essential functions with available fingers. | No reinstatement duty triggered because she could not perform essential functions or because leave was not properly invoked. | Genuine issues of material fact exist; interference not resolved. |
| Was Budhun subjected to FMLA retaliation when Reading replaced her with Rushow? | Replacement occurred close in time to leave expiry; actions tied to FMLA rights. | No adverse action proven or causation lacking; reasons may be legitimate. | Prima facie case substantial; issues of timing and causation remain for remand. |
| Should Budhun's proposed ADA claim have been allowed to amend? | Defendant regarded her as disabled; could support a claim. | Amendment would be futile because injury was transitory/minor and not disability. | District court did not abuse discretion; amendment denied as futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- Erdman v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 500 (3d Cir. 2009) (retaliation under FMLA and invocation timing)
- Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 427 F.3d 996 (6th Cir. 2005) (return-to-work trigger when doctor says may return)
- James v. Hyatt Regency Chi., 707 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2013) (fitness-for-duty notes with no unrestricted return trigger reinstatement)
- Callison v. City of Phila., 430 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2005) (elements of an FMLA interference claim)
- Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2012) (McDonnell Douglas framework for FMLA retaliation with circumstantial evidence)
- Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286 (3d Cir. 1997) (definition of adverse employment action)
- Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Ctrs., Inc., 427 F.3d 996 (6th Cir. 2005) (essential function analysis under ADA/FMLA context)