Jimenez v. Velcro USA, Inc. CV-01-001-JD 03/04/02 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Alex J. Jiminez
v. Civil No. 01-001-JD Opinion No. 2002 DNH 052 Velcro USA, Inc.
O R D E R
The plaintiff, Alex Jiminez, brings an action against his
former employer. Velcro, alleging that he was terminated in
violation of the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 28 U.S.C. §
2601 et seq. Velcro moves for summary judgment. Jiminez
obj ects.
Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
"'A dispute is genuine if the evidence about the fact is such
that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in favor of the
non-moving party. A fact is material if it carries with it the
potential to affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law.'" Santiaqo-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217
F.3d 46, 52 (1st Cir. 2000), quoting Sanchez v. Alvarado, 101
F.3d 223, 227 (1st Cir. 1996). When considering a motion for
summary judgment, the court views the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. See Davila-Perez v. Lockheed
Martin Corp., 202 F.3d 464, 466 (1st Cir. 2000) .
Background
From November of 1997 to November 29, 2001, Jiminez was
employed by Velcro. During that time, Jiminez was frequently
absent from work due to flare-ups of Crohn's disease, a
gastrointestinal condition. According to Velcro's absenteeism
policy, an employee is entitled to paid leave for certain types
of absences, such as vacation, jury duty, or bereavement, if he
or she submitted an absence request form in advance. The absence
request form provides check-off boxes for the employee to
indicate the nature of leave requested. One of the selections on
the form is "Family Medical Leave." Although Jiminez submitted
over twenty of the absence request forms in 2000, he only
indicated on one form, the last one, that he was requesting leave
for family medical leave purposes.
Velcro's absenteeism policy provides that when an employee
has accumulated fifty-six hours of absences he will receive
2 verbal counseling, followed by a written warning at seventy-two
hours. If an employee exceeds eighty absentee hours he or she
will be reviewed by the Review Board, comprised of human
resources and department supervisors. The Review Board may take
disciplinary action, including termination. In 1998, Jiminez
missed over eighty hours of work. His record was reviewed by the
Review Board, but no disciplinary action was taken. In 1999,
Jiminez surpassed fifty-six hours of absenteeism, and received
verbal counseling.
In February of 2000, human resources associate Diana Lavoie
wrote to Jiminez, informing him that he may be eligible for paid
family medical leave.1 The letter outlined Velcro's procedure
for approving medical leave requests, specifically, a required
Certification of Health Care Provider form. Lavoie included a
certification form for Jiminez's use with the letter. Jiminez
accrued more absences in February, March, and April of 2000. On
April 8, 2000, Jiminez's supervisor advised him that he had
accrued fifty-three and one-half absentee hours. The written
"Employee Discussion Form" documenting that conversation reports
1 Velcro's family medical leave policy was included in the employee handbook Jiminez received when he started working at Velcro. Information about the FMLA was also posted in the workplace. Jiminez acknowledges that he was aware, from the commencement of his employment, of Velcro's family medical leave policy.
3 that Jiminez told his supervisor that two specific absences in
April were medically related. His supervisor told him he needed
to file the FMLA paperwork in order to avoid having those hours
counted against him. Jiminez responded that he had the FMLA
paperwork and was planning to have it completed. In the
"Employee Comment" section of the form, Jiminez wrote that he had
an appointment with a new doctor on May 31, but in the meantime
he would attempt to have his previous doctor fill out the form.
On April 14, 2000, Lavoie sent Jiminez another letter, reminding
him that he may apply for medical leave and instructing him how
to proceed. Another certification form was enclosed.
After reaching fifty-six absentee hours, Jiminez received
verbal counseling, on May 7, 2000. On May 11, Lavoie wrote
Jiminez, explaining that none of his absences were approved as
medical leave because he failed to submit any certification.
In July of 2000, Jiminez received a written warning when he
surpassed the seventy-two hour absentee mark. At that time he
told his supervisor that he had been unsuccessful getting a
doctor to complete his certification form for family medical
leave and he was looking for a new doctor.
Jiminez had accrued eighty absentee hours by October18,
2000. On October 24, 2000, benefits specialist Diane Doiron
wrote Jiminez a third letter, explaining Velcro's family medical
4 leave benefits and outlining the necessary procedure for
requesting medical leave. Enclosed with the letter was another
certification form. The Review Board delayed its review of
Jiminez's record, to allow him to produce a certification form.
On November 14, 2000, Jiminez submitted a certification form
completed by John Dowd, M.D. Under the section asking for the
date the condition commenced, the phrase "commence 1990" is
legible, but it is crossed out. Instead, the certification
states that his condition commenced on October 27, 2000, and his
expected period of incapacity was three to four weeks. The Board
met on November 29, 2000, and discharged Jiminez for poor
attendance. Jiminez brought this action against Velcro, alleging
that Velcro wrongly failed to treat his absentee hours as medical
leave and therefore terminated his employment in violation of the
FMLA.
Discussion
Velcro argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the
ground that Jiminez, by failing to submit a health care
provider's certification for his absences prior to October 27,
2000, did not satisfy the statutory requirements for protection
5 under the FMLA.2 In response, Jiminez argues that he was not
required to file a certification in order to be approved for
medical leave, because Velcro was aware that he suffered from a
medical condition that necessitated frequent absences. He also
contends that Velcro failed to meet its statutory obligation
under the FMLA to assist him in providing the certification
required to support a request for medical leave. In addition, he
argues that Velcro was required to provide him an opportunity to
cure any deficiencies in his certification prior to terminating
him.
The "twin purposes" of the FMLA are to "balance the demands
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jimenez v. Velcro USA, Inc. CV-01-001-JD 03/04/02 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Alex J. Jiminez
v. Civil No. 01-001-JD Opinion No. 2002 DNH 052 Velcro USA, Inc.
O R D E R
The plaintiff, Alex Jiminez, brings an action against his
former employer. Velcro, alleging that he was terminated in
violation of the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 28 U.S.C. §
2601 et seq. Velcro moves for summary judgment. Jiminez
obj ects.
Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
"'A dispute is genuine if the evidence about the fact is such
that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in favor of the
non-moving party. A fact is material if it carries with it the
potential to affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law.'" Santiaqo-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217
F.3d 46, 52 (1st Cir. 2000), quoting Sanchez v. Alvarado, 101
F.3d 223, 227 (1st Cir. 1996). When considering a motion for
summary judgment, the court views the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. See Davila-Perez v. Lockheed
Martin Corp., 202 F.3d 464, 466 (1st Cir. 2000) .
Background
From November of 1997 to November 29, 2001, Jiminez was
employed by Velcro. During that time, Jiminez was frequently
absent from work due to flare-ups of Crohn's disease, a
gastrointestinal condition. According to Velcro's absenteeism
policy, an employee is entitled to paid leave for certain types
of absences, such as vacation, jury duty, or bereavement, if he
or she submitted an absence request form in advance. The absence
request form provides check-off boxes for the employee to
indicate the nature of leave requested. One of the selections on
the form is "Family Medical Leave." Although Jiminez submitted
over twenty of the absence request forms in 2000, he only
indicated on one form, the last one, that he was requesting leave
for family medical leave purposes.
Velcro's absenteeism policy provides that when an employee
has accumulated fifty-six hours of absences he will receive
2 verbal counseling, followed by a written warning at seventy-two
hours. If an employee exceeds eighty absentee hours he or she
will be reviewed by the Review Board, comprised of human
resources and department supervisors. The Review Board may take
disciplinary action, including termination. In 1998, Jiminez
missed over eighty hours of work. His record was reviewed by the
Review Board, but no disciplinary action was taken. In 1999,
Jiminez surpassed fifty-six hours of absenteeism, and received
verbal counseling.
In February of 2000, human resources associate Diana Lavoie
wrote to Jiminez, informing him that he may be eligible for paid
family medical leave.1 The letter outlined Velcro's procedure
for approving medical leave requests, specifically, a required
Certification of Health Care Provider form. Lavoie included a
certification form for Jiminez's use with the letter. Jiminez
accrued more absences in February, March, and April of 2000. On
April 8, 2000, Jiminez's supervisor advised him that he had
accrued fifty-three and one-half absentee hours. The written
"Employee Discussion Form" documenting that conversation reports
1 Velcro's family medical leave policy was included in the employee handbook Jiminez received when he started working at Velcro. Information about the FMLA was also posted in the workplace. Jiminez acknowledges that he was aware, from the commencement of his employment, of Velcro's family medical leave policy.
3 that Jiminez told his supervisor that two specific absences in
April were medically related. His supervisor told him he needed
to file the FMLA paperwork in order to avoid having those hours
counted against him. Jiminez responded that he had the FMLA
paperwork and was planning to have it completed. In the
"Employee Comment" section of the form, Jiminez wrote that he had
an appointment with a new doctor on May 31, but in the meantime
he would attempt to have his previous doctor fill out the form.
On April 14, 2000, Lavoie sent Jiminez another letter, reminding
him that he may apply for medical leave and instructing him how
to proceed. Another certification form was enclosed.
After reaching fifty-six absentee hours, Jiminez received
verbal counseling, on May 7, 2000. On May 11, Lavoie wrote
Jiminez, explaining that none of his absences were approved as
medical leave because he failed to submit any certification.
In July of 2000, Jiminez received a written warning when he
surpassed the seventy-two hour absentee mark. At that time he
told his supervisor that he had been unsuccessful getting a
doctor to complete his certification form for family medical
leave and he was looking for a new doctor.
Jiminez had accrued eighty absentee hours by October18,
2000. On October 24, 2000, benefits specialist Diane Doiron
wrote Jiminez a third letter, explaining Velcro's family medical
4 leave benefits and outlining the necessary procedure for
requesting medical leave. Enclosed with the letter was another
certification form. The Review Board delayed its review of
Jiminez's record, to allow him to produce a certification form.
On November 14, 2000, Jiminez submitted a certification form
completed by John Dowd, M.D. Under the section asking for the
date the condition commenced, the phrase "commence 1990" is
legible, but it is crossed out. Instead, the certification
states that his condition commenced on October 27, 2000, and his
expected period of incapacity was three to four weeks. The Board
met on November 29, 2000, and discharged Jiminez for poor
attendance. Jiminez brought this action against Velcro, alleging
that Velcro wrongly failed to treat his absentee hours as medical
leave and therefore terminated his employment in violation of the
FMLA.
Discussion
Velcro argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the
ground that Jiminez, by failing to submit a health care
provider's certification for his absences prior to October 27,
2000, did not satisfy the statutory requirements for protection
5 under the FMLA.2 In response, Jiminez argues that he was not
required to file a certification in order to be approved for
medical leave, because Velcro was aware that he suffered from a
medical condition that necessitated frequent absences. He also
contends that Velcro failed to meet its statutory obligation
under the FMLA to assist him in providing the certification
required to support a request for medical leave. In addition, he
argues that Velcro was required to provide him an opportunity to
cure any deficiencies in his certification prior to terminating
him.
The "twin purposes" of the FMLA are to "balance the demands
of the workplace with the needs of families" and "to entitle
employees to take reasonable leave for medical reasons." Hodqens
v. Gen. Dynamics Corp.. 144 F.3d 151, 159 (1st Cir. 1998). The
FMLA provides that "an eligible employee shall be entitled to a
total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period . . .
[bjecause of a serious health condition that makes the employee
unable to perform the basic functions of the position of such
employee." 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1). An employee may also take
2 Velcro states in its motion for summary judgment that Jiminez's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. However, since Velcro fails to develop any argument on that issue, and instead bases its motion exclusively on the merits, the court will not consider any statute of limitations issue.
6 intermittent leave when medically necessary. See § 2612(b);
Hodqens, 144 F.3d at 159. It is a violation of the FMLA for any
employer to "interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of
. . . any right provided" by the FMLA. § 2615(a) (1) .
Velcro's medical leave policy required a health care
provider certification from an employee as a condition of
approval. The FMLA provides that "[a]n employer may require that
a request for leave . . . be supported by a certification issued
by the health care provider of the eligible employee . . . . The
employee shall provide, in a timely manner, a copy of such
certification to the employer." § 2613(a). A certification is
sufficient to support medical leave if it states the date the
condition commenced, the expected duration of the condition,
appropriate medical facts in the health care provider's knowledge
regarding the condition, and a statement that the employee is not
able to perform his function. See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(b). The
certification form used by Velcro and provided to employees is a
standard form created by the United States Department of Labor.
"The employer shall advise an employee whenever the employer
finds a certification incomplete, and provide the employee a
reasonable opportunity to cure any such deficiency." 29 C.F.R. §
825.305(d); see also Washington v. Fort James Operating Co., 110
F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1330 (D. Or. 2000); Rouse v. MARKEM Corp., No.
7 98-229-B, (D.N.H. Aug. 2 2 , 1999); Sims v. Alameda-Contra Transit Dist., 2 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1266 (N.D. Cal. 1998). " [T]ermination
is not an appropriate response for an inadequate certification."
Sims, 2 F. Supp. 2d at 1268.
Jiminez argues that Velcro failed to give him a chance to
cure the deficiencies in his certification which resulted in his
termination. Dr. Dowd filled out each required section of the
medical certification as prescribed by statute, however, the
information he provided was not sufficient to support Jiminez's
request for medical leave to excuse his absences prior to October
27, 2000. See § 2613(b). The First Circuit has not addressed
whether a certification that is inadequate to support the
employee's leave request may be considered "incomplete" under §
825.305.
Velcro's argument reflects a literal view of what
constitutes an "incomplete" certification, that an employer has
an obligation to allow an employee to cure an inadequate
certification only if it is physically incomplete. See Shtab v.
The Greate Bay Hotel and Casino, Inc., 173 F. Supp. 2d 255, 265
(D.N.J. 2001). Section 825.305(d) speaks of curing "any such
deficiency" which results in an incomplete certification. The
Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "deficiency" as "a lack or
shortage." (1990). District courts have interpreted this language to mean that an employer's obligation under § 825.305(d)
applies where any type of deficiency in a certification operates
to defeat an employee's request for medical leave, including a
lack or shortage of required information. See, e.g., Shtab, 173
F. Supp. 2d at 258-60 (holding that employer had obligation to
allow employee to cure deficient certification where two of
employee's absences were not addressed by certification
submitted); Washington, 110 F. Supp. 2d at 1333 (holding that
employer had duty to allow employee to cure deficient
certification, where certification submitted predated some of
employee's absences); Sims, 2 F. Supp. 2d at 1266 (holding that
certification that did not address two days of employee's
absences could not be used as grounds for discipline against him
because the employer never notified the employee that
certification was inadequate in any way); .cf. Zawadowicz v. CVS
Corp., 99 F. Supp. 2d 518, 524 (D.N.J. 2000) (holding that
employer satisfied its obligation by giving employee notice of
certification's deficiencies, including missing dates of
absences, and specific instructions how to cure them).
Jiminez's request for medical leave for his absences prior
to October 27 was unsuccessful because Dr. Dowd did not provide
the dates of those absences in the certification, and it was
therefore deficient. Although he was present at the Review Board
9 meeting, Jiminez affirms that at the time he was terminated he
did not understand why the certification was deficient and he was
not given a chance to have his doctor clarify, amend or extend
the certification. On the contrary, Jiminez affirms that when he
submitted his medical certification to Lavoie, she told him that
"this is what's going to save your butt," and he was "all set."
Jiminez states that he was surprised to learn he was terminated.
Velcro has not shown, based on undisputed facts, that it complied
with the FMLA requirement to allow Jiminez to cure any deficiency
in the certification. Velcro therefore is not entitled to
summary judgment as a matter of law.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion for
summary judgment (document no. 6) is denied.
In light of this ruling, the parties are urged to engage in
a good faith attempt to resolve this matter by agreement.
SO ORDERED.
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. District Judge
March 4, 2002 cc: Francis G. Murphy Jr., Esquire Robert E. Jauron, Esquire