Third Circuit Interprets "Overnight Stay" to Define Scope of "Serious Health Condition" under the FMLA

Practical Law Legal Update 1-614-8085 (Approx. 6 pages)

Third Circuit Interprets "Overnight Stay" to Define Scope of "Serious Health Condition" under the FMLA

by Practical Law Labor & Employment

Background

Jeffrey Bonkowski worked as a machine operator for Oberg and had a number of health-related problems. On November 14, 2011, Bonkowski began to experience shortness of breath and dizziness during a meeting with his supervisors in which they were discussing Bonkowski's recent suspension for falling asleep on the job. Bonkowski's supervisors gave him permission to leave work during the workday. Bonkowski continued to be in distress that day (November 14, 2011), and his wife took him to a hospital. They arrived at a hospital shortly before midnight but Bonkowski was not admitted to the hospital until shortly after midnight, November 15, 2011. After testing done at the hospital did not reveal any serious medical issues, Bonkowski was released from the hospital in the early evening of November 15, 2011 with no restrictions on his activities. On November 16, 2011, Oberg terminated Bonkowski's employment for walking off the job on November 14, 2011.

Bonkowski sued Oberg under the FMLA, claiming that Oberg retaliated against him for exercising his FMLA rights and interfered with his exercise of FMLA rights. The district court granted summary judgment to Oberg, finding that:

Bonkowski did not have a "serious health condition" (defined as "an illness, injury, impairment, or physical condition that involves inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility") entitling him to protection under the FMLA (29 U.S.C. § 2611(11)(A)).
Bonkowski did not satisfy the FMLA regulation defining the statutory term "inpatient care" as "an overnight stay in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical facility" (29 C.F.R. § 825.114).
"Overnight stay" required staying in a facility from sunset one day to sunrise the next day, and Bonkowski's stay in the hospital did not meet that requirement.

Bonkowski appealed to the Third Circuit.

Outcome

The Third Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, disagreed with the district court's interpretation of "overnight stay," but affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Oberg, holding that "overnight stay" in the FMLA regulations requires an employee to:

Stay in a hospital, hospice or residential medical facility for a substantial period of time.
Be admitted on one calendar day and discharged the next calendar day.

Because Bonkowski was discharged the same calendar day he was admitted, his stay in the hospital did not constitute an "overnight stay" to meet the FMLA's "inpatient care" definition. As a result, the Third Circuit reasoned that Bonkowski fell outside the scope of having a "serious medical condition" entitling him to protection under the FMLA.

After examining the development of FMLA regulations, the Third Circuit found that:

The DOL had not specifically addressed what "overnight stay" means, leaving it to the court to do so.
The sunset to sunrise approach taken by the district court was flawed because the district court:
- relied on incomplete dictionary definitions of "overnight" and "night;"
- applied an overly narrow reading of the "overnight stay" regulation; and
- relied too heavily on extraneous factors like the time of year and the geographic location, which would produce inconsistent and absurd results given the varying sunset and sunrise times around the country and throughout the year.
The "totality of the circumstances" test urged by Bonkowski was also fundamentally flawed because it would:
- render the issue a question of fact to be addressed by a jury when statutory and regulatory interpretation are questions of law to be decided by courts;
- make it more difficult for employers and employees to assess whether a specific set of circumstances represents an "overnight stay;"
- lead to an increase in adverse actions against employees, with employers more emboldened to take a chance that a jury would find that the employee did not have an "overnight stay" applying the totality of the circumstances; and
- lead to different juries reaching different results even under the same set of factual circumstances.
The "calendar day" approach measured by the inpatient's admission and discharge times urged by Oberg was the preferable approach because it:
- is similar to the medicare statutory and regulatory scheme that depends on an in-patient's admission to a hospital, and not the patient's arrival (Estate of Landers v. Leavitt, 545 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2009));
- constitutes an objective "bright line" rule that would simplify and help deter disputes over whether an employee stayed "overnight";
- is consistent with the FMLA's purpose not to cover short-term conditions; and
- is more liberal than the "sunset-sunrise" approach because it does not require the patient to be admitted before sunset.
The additional requirement that an employee stay for a "substantial period of time" would avoid situations in which staying from 11:59 p.m. on one day to 12:01 a.m. the next day (a total of two minutes) would constitute an overnight stay. The court added that a minimum of eight hours could meet this requirement but did not specify a minimum required length of time.

Judge Fuentes dissented, arguing that the majority's calendar day approach:

Is impractical and would produce inequitable results.
Is inconsistent with the remedial purpose of the FMLA.
Overlooks factors that can delay a patient's admission to the hospital after arrival, including
- whether the hospital is located in an urban or rural area;
- the time of year the patient is admitted; and
- transportation and traffic-related delays.

Practical Implications

The Third Circuit's decision in Bonkowski provides a bright line rule on what constitutes an "overnight stay" under the FMLA. Notwithstanding the potential flaws with bright line rules in general, and specific potential problems pointed out by the dissent, the decision provides clarity to employers on this specific issue. For employers and employees within the Third Circuit to determine whether the employee's hospital stay qualifies as an "overnight stay" under the FMLA, they simply have to look at the employee's admission and discharge times. However, the court's unwillingness to define the additional "substantial period of time" requirement could still leave room for dispute, particularly when an employee's stay meets the next calendar day admission and discharge requirement, but the stay was less than eight hours.

Third Circuit Interprets "Overnight Stay" to Define Scope of "Serious Health Condition" under the FMLA | Practical Law