White v. County of Los Angeles
170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 472
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- White, a Senior District Attorney Investigator for LA DA, takes 12 weeks of FMLA leave for severe depression starting May 2011; DA approved leave and later restored White to employment on Sept 7, 2011 upon her health-care provider’s certification.
- White’s FMLA certification from Dr. de Brito indicated she could return to work; DA did not mark the return-to-work fitness-for-duty paragraph on the designation notice.
- During late 2011, DA sought a medical reevaluation under Los Angeles County Civil Service Rules to assess White’s fitness for duty due to concerns about her mental state and past conduct.
- White was ordered to appear for a county-ordered medical reevaluation at county expense; she failed to appear, triggering potential disciplinary action.
- White filed suit seeking to prevent the reevaluation and sought mandamus; trial court granted injunctions, and the DA appealed.
- Court reversed, holding White was properly restored to work on certification and that post-return medical reevaluation may be required under ADA when supported by business necessity; FMLA not violated by the reevaluation order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DA violated FMLA by seeking a post-return FFDE | White argues FMLA return-certified by doctor; post-return FFDE violates FMLA | DA asserts post-return FFDE permissible under ADA with business necessity | No FMLA violation; post-return FFDE permissible if ADA-based and justified by business necessity |
| Whether Rule 9.07 medical reevaluation is permitted after return | White contends post-return reevaluation exceeds FMLA scope | County may require FFDE after return under ADA if justified | Permissible; ADA-guided post-return medical evaluation allowed when supported by business necessity |
| Whether White was properly restored to employment on Sept 7, 2011 | Certification entitled restoration; any delay violates FMLA | Restoration occurred; reevaluation does not negate restoration | White was restored to employment as of Sept 7, 2011; FMLA not violated by subsequent reevaluation |
Key Cases Cited
- Albert v. Runyon, 6 F.Supp.2d 57 (D. Mass. 1998) (post-return FFDE requires business necessity; cannot be based on FMLA leave alone)
- Routes v. Henderson, 58 F.Supp.2d 959 (S.D. Ind. 1999) (post-return FFDE when independent business need; not solely because of pre-FMLA conduct)
- Sanders v. City of Newport, 657 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2011) (interference with FMLA rights requires no intent to deny benefits; focus on benefits denied)
- Albert v. Runyon and Routes (cited for regulatory shift), — (—) (regulatory change clarified post-return ADA/FMLA interaction)
- Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 612 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasizes evaluating mental health issues in peace officers may justify FFDE)
- Gordon v. United States Capitol Police, 923 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D.D.C. 2013) (FFDE considerations when officer carries a weapon)