Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
Greetings From Mexico. About That Sick-Leave Policy…
A Mexico vacation while on sick leave is an easy headline. The employer’s defense required a closer look at two separate decisions.
TL;DR: A police department defeated discrimination, accommodation, and retaliation claims brought by an officer demoted for violating its sick-leave policy and later discharged because she could not perform her essential duties. The broader lessons concern medical support for accommodations and a disciplinary timeline that preceded notice of an EEOC charge.
A vacation triggered discipline. Medical restrictions led to discharge.
A police officer received a cervical injection and missed work. Because this was her seventh nonconsecutive sick-leave absence, department policy required the city doctor’s authorization before she could return. While awaiting that visit, she took a previously scheduled trip to Mexico.
The department’s unusual policy restricted when employees on sick leave could leave home, with additional departures requiring management approval. An investigation found that her trip violated that policy. She later sued over her demotion and discharge, but the employer won without trial, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
The medical issues continued after the trip. She missed a doctor’s appointment, later was denied clearance pending MRI results, and underwent lumbar-fusion surgery. She remained on extended sick leave with full pay from September 2022 through December 2023.
She requested light duty, but never received the required return-to-work clearance. Her doctors provided no estimate of when she could complete fitness testing, and her neurosurgeon described her restrictions as “likely permanent.” At a November hearing, she acknowledged that she could no longer perform a police officer’s essential duties. The department discharged her in December.
The accommodation defense rested on the medical information
Under the ADA, the court rejected her request for indefinite leave because her doctors supplied no estimated date for fitness testing. Her light-duty claim also failed given the missing clearance. The court separately rejected her reassignment argument and found no evidence that the department had failed to discuss accommodations.
Those discussions had substance: the department sought information from her physician, requested a second opinion from the city doctor, and held a hearing with her and her counsel. The trip supplied the policy violation; the accommodation analysis turned on medical restrictions and the requested work.
The EEOC charge arrived after the disciplinary recommendation
She filed an EEOC charge on May 4. That same day, department officials consulted the civil service agency about the September policy violation, and the agency recommended demotion or discharge. The department received notice of the charge on May 9 and demoted her on May 25.
The close timing supported an initial inference of retaliation. But she offered no evidence rebutting the employer’s explanation, backed by the recommendation predating notice of her charge.
Before acting on a leave-related dispute, separate the policy investigation, accommodation analysis, and dates when decisionmakers learned of protected activity. Each needs its own factual support.
Three practices for leave disputes with overlapping claims
Medical uncertainty needs a specific question
The missing information here included when the employee could undergo fitness testing. Ask what the employee can perform and when a proposed accommodation could enable a return; avoid treating every request for additional leave as indefinite.
A trip can prompt questions without supplying the answers
Travel to Mexico may give an employer reason to seek clarification if the employee’s activities appear inconsistent with reported limitations. Ask about the specific inconsistency and obtain relevant medical information before concluding that the employee can return to work.
The disciplinary timeline starts before the final notice
The earlier recommendation helped explain a demotion announced shortly after the EEOC charge. Preserve when the investigation began, what was recommended, and when the employer learned of the charge; the final action date tells only part of the story.
The vacation drew attention. The medical information and the dates explained why the employer won.