James Hansen v. Fincantieri Marine Group, LLC
763 F.3d 832
7th Cir.2014Background
- Hansen, an FMG employee, had an attendance-point policy (10 points in 1 year = termination); FMLA leave is excluded from points and administered by Matrix.
- Dr. Michael Post certified Hansen has chronic depression causing episodic flare-ups that prevent concentration and make intermittent leave medically necessary; he estimated ~4 episodes per 6 months lasting 2–5 days each.
- FMG approved several earlier FMLA absences based on that certification, but Matrix denied some July 2011 intermittent-leave requests as exceeding the estimated frequency; Hansen incurred points and was fired after accumulating 13 points.
- Dr. Post later sent a July 26 letter expanding the estimated frequency to once a month through year-end; FMG did not reinstate Hansen.
- The district court granted summary judgment for FMG, concluding Hansen needed expert medical testimony to prove incapacity on the specific July dates; the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exceeding estimated frequency/duration in a certification permits denying intermittent FMLA leave | Hansen: certification gives entitlement; estimates are just estimates and do not bar leave absent recertification or notice | FMG: employee exceeded certified frequency/duration, so July absences were not FMLA-protected | Court: Estimates are not absolute limits; employer should request recertification or notify employee before denying leave; here FMG failed to do so |
| Whether plaintiff must present expert medical testimony to prove incapacity for specific days | Hansen: expert testimony is not required; lay testimony plus the provider’s certification can create a jury issue | FMG: absent expert testimony or medical documentation, Hansen cannot prove incapacity for the disputed days | Court: Expert testimony not required; medical certification plus lay testimony can create a genuine fact issue for trial |
| Whether employer may directly contact healthcare provider and rely on Matrix’s fax to deny FMLA | Hansen: Matrix’s direct contact was improper and confusing; employer failed to follow regulation for deficiencies/recertification | FMG: relied on Matrix’s confirmation to deny leave | Held: Direct contact with provider was improper; Matrix’s fax was unclear and did not satisfy requirement to notify employee or request recertification |
| Whether plaintiff established prima facie retaliation/interference | Hansen: termination resulted from attendance points tied to disputed FMLA denials; if leave was protected, retaliation claim stands | FMG: no medical support for July absences, so no protected leave and no prima facie case | Held: Seventh Circuit found sufficient evidence to raise a factual dispute about entitlement to FMLA leave, so interference/retaliation claims survive summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Spurling v. C & M Fine Pack, Inc., 739 F.3d 1055 (7th Cir.) (summary judgment standard and drawing inferences for non-movant)
- Stoops v. One Call Commc’ns, Inc., 141 F.3d 309 (7th Cir. 1998) (intermittent leave allowed when medically necessary for episodic chronic conditions)
- Caskey v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 535 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2008) (some medical evidence required to show a serious health condition)
- Haefling v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 169 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 1999) (medical evidence stronger than plaintiff’s bare testimony is generally needed to show a serious health condition)
- Kauffman v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 426 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2005) (employer may request medical certification; certifications can be sufficient to establish FMLA entitlement)
- Ridings v. Riverside Med. Ctr., 537 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2008) (requirements for certification and sufficiency of medical documentation)
- Schaar v. Lehigh Valley Health Servs., Inc., 598 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2010) (combination of physician’s note and employee lay testimony can create a genuine issue as to incapacity)
- Lubke v. City of Arlington, 455 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2006) (lay testimony alone can suffice to raise factual dispute on incapacity)
- Marchisheck v. San Mateo Cnty., 199 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 1999) (employee’s declaration about inability to work can preclude summary judgment)
- Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903 (7th Cir. 2008) (reliance on physician certification as evidence of treatment and entitlement to FMLA leave)
- Ames v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 629 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2011) (two-prong FMLA entitlement: serious health condition and inability to perform job functions)