Robert Jones v. C & D Technologies
684 F.3d 673
7th Cir.2012Background
- Jones, a machine operator, had chronic leg/back pain and anxiety with periodic treatments; C&D implemented a point-based attendance policy in May 2003.
- Jones’s October 1, 2009 absence was split between a morning personal-errand segment and an afternoon FMLA-qualifying treatment segment.
- Dr. Lubak faxed FMLA certifications for ongoing treatment in September 2009; Morgan instructed Jones to notify his supervisor prior to absences.
- Jones visited Dr. Lubak that morning, obtained a prescription-refill note, and then attended a 1:00 p.m. appointment in Crawfordsville; no examination occurred.
- C&D terminated Jones on October 7 after it credited morning absence as personal and afternoon treatment as FMLA-qualifying.
- District court granted summary judgment for C&D; the case on appeal centers on whether Jones had a valid FMLA leave due to a serious health condition and need for treatment on Oct. 1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones was entitled to FMLA leave on the morning of Oct. 1. | Jones argues the morning absence was for treatment. | C&D contends no treatment occurred that morning. | No; Jones did not receive treatment that morning, so no FMLA leave entitlement. |
| Whether a prescription-refill note constitutes FMLA treatment under §825.113(c). | Prescription notes indicate continuing treatment. | Notes alone do not prove treatment preventing work. | Prescription note alone is not treatment preventing work; no entitlement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903 (7th Cir. 2008) (treatment excludes merely scheduling appointments; requires examinations/evaluations)
- Ridings v. Riverside Med. Ctr., 537 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2008) (treatment concept aligned with examinations; continuing treatment not shown by tasks like picking up notes)
- Goelzer v. Sheboygan Cnty., Wis., 604 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 2010) (clarifies elements for FMLA interference and treatment definitions)
- Stevenson v. Hyre Elec. Co., 505 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2007) (discusses serious health condition requiring continuing treatment)
- Kauffman v. Fed. Express Corp., 426 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2005) (defines serious health condition and incapacity for FMLA entitlement)