Judge Prohibits Sick-Leave Reporting Policy

A federal judge has issued a permanent injunction against the Columbus (Ohio) Police Department in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of dispatchers, prohibiting the agency from requiring explicit medical information be provided to supervisors when a dispatcher returns from sick leave. In his 30-page decision. U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frost chided the city’s attorneys over their submitted documents, saying they provided “page after page of argument” on issues that had already been decided by the court. Judge Frost wrote, “The Court frowns upon this course of action because of the waste of time and resources it has necessitated.” The dispatchers filed the lawsuit last year, alleging the police department’s policy required them to divulge their private medical condition to supervisors, which they said is a violation of federal medical privacy laws. Last year the judge extended the original lawsuit filed to include all other affected police employees. In June 2008 the judge issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the police department from enforcing the sick leave reporting requirement until a full court hearing.

Directive 3.07 III(H) requires dispatchers returning from medical leave to provide their “immediate supervisor” with a doctor’s note which, “must state the nature of the illness and that you are capable of returning to regular duty.”

Plaintiffs Lisa Lee, Carrie Best and Cheri Bowman alleged in their original lawsuit that the sick leave reporting procedures violate the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and privacy provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit agreed that the city’s Human Resourcs agency was properly entitled to receive medical information from the employees’ doctor, but that not an employee’s supervisor.

The city made several arguments that disputed the lawsuits claims, including that it had a legitimate business interest in making the information available to the supervisor to manage sick leave. They also argued against extending the lawsuit to a class-action, and that the policy didn’t violate collective bargaining agreements.

In this latest court decision, Judge Frost made several references to the manner in which the city’s attorney was filing court documents. He said the city’s attorney failed to file new arguments or points of law to oppose the issue of a permanant injunction. Instead, “Defendant brings issues before the Court upon which this Court has already definitely ruled,” the judge wrote.

At one point Frost wrote, “Defendant, again, does not address this Court’s analysis and conclusion and merely reargues their previously rejected position, which is no more persuasive now than it was before.”

Judge Frost also noted that several of the arguments made by the city’s attorney were not relevant to the issue. On one issue, he write, “This argument fails for two glaringly obvious reasons,” going on to explain that the attorney had inaccurately framed the issue being debated. On another issue, Frost wrote, “Defendant’s argument misses the mark.”

Judge Frost denied–again–the city’s motion challenging various technical issues. The judge ruled against the city’s questions on whether the class representatives appropriately represent the class, whether the plaintiffs’ union contract prevent this Court from ruling on the police department policy, and “whether the evidence of harm before the Court is sufficient to uphold injunctive and/or declaratory relief.”

The judge also denied a request to toss the plaintiff’s original statements, which had not been made under penalty of purjury. Frost noted that the statements were later refiled correctly.

The judge then denied the city’s request for a summary judgement, which would decide the lawsuit in the city’s favor. Among the arguments that the judge disagreed was that the defendents were not now “disabled,” and thus not eligible for protection under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which provides some medical privacy protections. Judge Frost pointed to previous court decisions that set out protections under the ADA, even before a person might become disabled.

Judge Frost also noted that the city isn’t entitled to a “business necessity” defense, noting that the city had not presented any evidence that supervisors used the medical information to administer sick leave or deter mis-use. “Indeed, as Plaintiff Classes correctly note, the type of evidence necessary is not available because the city has never undertaken to analyze the incidence of malingering and sick leave abuse among its employees.”

The city also claimed that supervisors use the medical information to determine fitness for duty. “Again, however, Defendant fails to present any evidence of how a general medical diagnosis provided to a medically untrained supervisor ‘genuinely serves’ that asserted business necessity or is ‘a reasonably effective method of achieving’ Defendant’s stated goal.”

The judge then granted the plaintff’s request for a permanent injuction, barring the sick leave reporting procedure. The court concluded that the police department policy, “encompasses unwarranted intrusion into all areas of an employee’s personal medical information without a sufficiently exculpatory animus,” and, therefore, violates the privacy provisions found in the U.S. Constitution.

Download (pdf) the full court decision here.