FMLA Leave Does Not Mean Disability for Purposes of the Rehabilitation Act
According to a decision by the Third Circuit, the simple fact that an employee receives FMLA leave does not necessarily mean that the employee is disabled for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act. Further, an employee does not automatically have a “record of disability” if the FMLA leave was approved.
In an October 21, 2008 unpublished opinion, the Third Circuit held that a nurse with post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and alcoholism failed to demonstrate that she had a disability under the Rehabilitation Act. In Nicholson v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, 3d Cir., No. 07-4354 (2008 WL 4636353), the Third Circuit upheld the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the West Penn Allegheny Health System.
The Third Circuit determined that Nicholson’s FMLA-covered illnesses were not a disability because they did not preclude her from working in a wide range of jobs. The Court specifically rejected the nurse’s arguments that her use of FMLA leave served as factual support for having a disability. A “serious health condition” within the meaning of the FMLA is “a different concept” than the term “disability” and thus both must be analyzed separately, noted the Court.
To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, an employee must show that he or she has a disability, is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of his or her job—with or without reasonable accommodation—and was terminated or otherwise discriminated against. Upon such a showing, the burden shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Specifically, the Court noted that, under the Rehabilitation Act, an individual with a “disability” is someone who had a physical or mental impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities, had a record of having such an impairment, or was regarded as having such an impairment. The district court determined that Nicholson failed to establish that she had a disability, or had a record of disability, and the Third Circuit affirmed this determination.
Ultimately, courts will not simply assume that a FMLA-qualifying “serious health condition” also constitutes a “disability” for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To be substantially limited in the major life activity of “working,” and thus disabled under the ADA, an employee must be unable to perform a wide range of jobs. On the other hand, a FMLA-qualifying serious health condition requires only that the eligible employee be unable to perform one or more essential functions of his or her job.
