Too many leave extension requests dooms employee in court

When it comes to a leave of absence, there's a familiar pattern as old as time:

1. An employee requests leave.
2. The employer approves the leave.
3. The employee exhausts the 12 weeks of leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
4. The employee needs more leave.

But what happens if an employee asks for multiple leave extensions? How many times do employers have to accept leave extensions? One court case shows how one employer prevailed in court.

Gina's story

Gina, an employee, was involved in two car accidents in 2017 and 2018. She took leave for these but returned to work after each leave of absence. In 2020, however, things began to change.

• In July 2020, the employer approved Gina's request for medical leave based on her chiropractor's opinion that her back pain would prevent her from working until August 7.
• Two days before August 7, however, Gina asked to extend her leave, forwarding her chiropractor's recommendation not to work again until September 5.
• In September, Gina asked to extend her leave, forwarding a similar note recommending no work until October 5.
• Gina didn't return to work in October, and she didn't ask to extend her leave until December, when she asked to extend her leave for a longer period, through April 2021.
• A nurse practitioner estimated Gina wouldn't be able to perform work "of any kind" until April 5, 2021.
• The employer approved her request to extend her leave through April 5, 2021.
• On April 19, Gina asked to extend her leave by three months.
• Gina's nurse practitioner anticipated she would require continued leave through July 2021, which the employer approved.
• But again, in July, Gina requested another extension, this time for six months, based on her nurse practitioner's anticipation that she "will be able to return to work full time" by December 25, 2021. At this point, the employer had granted five extensions, and what had begun as one month of leave had become a year of leave.

Gina had never requested or proposed any accommodation other than a leave of absence. The employer asked her to have her doctor complete a questionnaire so it could decide if only that accommodation — an extended leave of absence — would be reasonable, or whether there was another option.

Gina's nurse practitioner explained that Gina was "unable to stand independently and uses a wheelchair" and had "severe pain." She was "unable to perform any of the functions of her work." As for potential accommodations, the answer was unequivocal: "No accommodations" were possible. This would continue to be true for six more months.

The employer denied her request for more leave, saying it wasn't plausible that extending the leave any further would facilitate Gina's return to work. The employer fired Gina on August 6, 2021.

Gina sued, arguing that the employer violated the state's law, which is reflective of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The court's opinion

The court found that Gina couldn't have returned to work without any accommodation, and she proposed no accommodation other than a leave extension. Would another extension, therefore, be reasonable?

In ruling for the employer, the court held that a finite leave can be a reasonable accommodation, provided it is likely that at the end of the leave, the employee would be able to perform their duties. But employers don't have to wait indefinitely for an employee's medical condition to be corrected. Repeated requests for leave extension change an allegedly finite leave into an indefinite leave. An indefinite leave of absence isn't reasonable under the ADA.

While a series of extensions to an ongoing leave of absence doesn't necessarily mean that it would continue indefinitely, at the time Gina made her last request, she had requested and received many extensions based on similarly unconditional predictions that she could return to work. The employer had no reason to believe she had regained or would regain her ability to work by taking more leave. Nothing suggested her most recent request was different than those that had come before.

Rosado v. Leprino Foods Co., Eastern District of California, No. 2:22-cv-02302, April 4, 2025.