By David Worley
In Bowman v. St. Luke’s Quakertown Hospital, 27 AD Cases 786 (E.D. Pa. 2012), the District Court dismissed an EMT’s failure to accommodate claims under the ADA, but denied the motion to dismiss his FMLA claims when he had been fired for taking too much time off, following a transient ischemic attack which made him unable to work as an EMT. To survive the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff only needed to allege sufficient facts, when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, to indicate he had been deprived of his FMLA rights. His complaint met this low standard.
Following a transient ischemic attack (TIA) (a forewarning of a possible stroke), Bowman took time off work, using accumulated sick leave at the advice of the human resources manager. He returned to work approximately two weeks later, but had to occasionally miss work due to subsequent TIA episodes. Coworkers indicated they believed he was not actually having any medical issues, and Bowman never told his superiors of the subsequent TIA episodes.
To state a claim for failure to accommodate, the employer must be on notice of the condition that needs accommodation. While the employer was notified of the initial TIA episode, the employer did in fact sufficiently accommodate that episode by allowing Bowman to take time off. The employer was not informed that any other TIA episodes happened, but only that Bowman would not be coming into work. Thus, these episodes cannot form the basis of a failure to accommodate claim.
As to the FMLA claim, Bowman was successful in indicating he was a qualified employee who was entitled to FMLA leave. Construed liberally, the complaint provided sufficient indication that Bowman had a serious medical condition, entitling him to FMLA leave. Further, as he had worked for five years with the employer, it is presumed that he had met the statutory bar of 1250 hours.
The determinative question was whether Bowman notified the employer of his need for FMLA leave. While the court did not indicate that notice had been given, there were sufficient facts to indicate that the employer may have known of the medical issue.
In rare cases, an employee’s indication that he or she is “sick” may provide the employer with adequate notice where it is otherwise supported by details suggesting a serious health condition. Whether Bowman’s subsequent “call-outs” provided St. Luke’s with adequate notice in light of his prior indication that he suffered a TIA and wanted FMLA leave is a question not ripe for resolution at this early stage.
