In Bailey v. Southwest Gas Co., 275 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that an employee could not pursue a claim for interference with rights granted by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Employee, Millicent Bailey, was employed by Employer, Southwest Gas Company, as a customer service representative. Two incidents occurred where Employee did not complete her assigned duties while working overtime at the end of an evening shift. When questioned by her supervisor, Employee claimed that she could not safely work the overtime. Because Employee’s response suggested that her job performance may have been affected by a medical condition, the supervisor requested that Employee obtain a letter from her doctor explaining her condition and her inability to work overtime. Employee presented a letter from her doctor indicating that she was taking medication with the side effect of sedation.
After receiving the doctor’s letter, Employer advised Employee of her rights under the FMLA and asked Employee to have her doctor complete FMLA Form 180.4, “Certification of Health Care Provider.” Although Employee denied that she was sick or disabled, she eventually presented the form to her doctor, who only partially completed it. After Employee refused to obtain a completed form and refused to authorize the doctor to provide the information directly to Employer, Employer fired her for insubordination. Employee then filed a lawsuit claiming interference with her FMLA rights. After the trial court granted judgment to Employer, Employee appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
For several reasons, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court correctly determined that Employer did not interfere with Employee’s FMLA rights:
- Employee admitted that the FMLA does not apply in her case, because she did not have a qualifying health condition, she never requested FMLA leave, and she would not have taken FMLA leave had it been offered. Because Employee never sought to invoke her FMLA rights, she cannot claim that Employer interfered with those rights.
- None of Employer’s actions interfered with Employee’s FMLA rights. To the contrary, Employer, upon learning of Employee’s use of soporific medication and its effect on her ability to work, had the obligation to explore Employee’s status under the FMLA.
- Employee failed to comply with her duties and responsibilities under the FMLA – the certification from her doctor was incomplete and insufficient and Employee refused to provide additional information and explain her use of the soporific medication.
The Court also rejected Employee’s retaliatory discharge claim, which was based on the assertion that Employer terminated Employee because she complained that the overtime requirements endangered the public by requiring exhausted employees to drive at night and to work with natural gas connections. Employee, however, did not present any objective evidence as to the unreasonable extent of overtime expected of the employees. Furthermore, Employer did not fire Employee because she complained about working overtime; it fired her because she refused to comply with its legitimate requests for additional information regarding her medical condition. Thus, her complaints about working overtime were not the proximate cause of her termination.