Sixth Circuit Upholds City’s Requirement of Note from Returning Sick Leave Employees

1The City of Columbus issued a directive that required those returning to work from sick leave or restricted duty to submit a doctor’s note to their immediate supervisor stating the “nature of the illness” and whether the employee was fit to return to regular duty work. Several employees filed a class action lawsuit against the City on behalf of themselves and current and former employees, alleging that the Directive violated the federal Rehabilitation Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on a qualified individual’s disability and their privacy rights under the federal Constitution. The Rehabilitation Act applies to any program or activity receiving federal money.

The Sixth Circuit ruled that the Directive violated neither the Rehabilitation Act law nor the Constitution. The Court distinguished the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by noting that the ADA prohibits discrimination “because of” a disability, while the Rehabilitation Act only prohibits discrimination “solely on the basis of” a disability. Thus, an employer who makes a decision because of an employee’s disability does not violate the Rehabilitation Act if the disability is not the sole reason for the decision. The Court noted, “the mere fact that an employer, pursuant to a sick leave policy, requests a general diagnosis that may tend to lead to information about disabilities falls far short of the requisite proof that the employer is discriminating solely on the basis of disability.”

Thus, the noted difference between the two Acts supported upholding the Directive. However, the Court suggested that even under the ADA, the Directive would be permissible since it was a valid “workplace policy applicable to all employees, disabled or not.” In support of its position, the Court also pointed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s enforcement guidelines which endorse an employer’s ability to request a doctor’s note when the employee has used sick leave. Lee v. City of Columbus, Ohio, No. 09-3899 (6th Cir. 2011).