September 19, 2024 | Category: Leave, Termination | Tags: , ,

Another case out of the Appeals Court for the Eleventh Circuit has highlighted the importance of consistency when applying employee paperwork requirements. In today’s complex workplace, the significance of proper documentation practices cannot be overstated.

 As illustrated by the case of Jones v. Georgia Ports Authority, the consistent application of documentation requirements is crucial not only for compliance but also for protecting both employees and employers.

What are Proper Documentation Practices Employers Should Always Follow?

Proper documentation practices involve several key elements to ensure clarity, consistency, and compliance in administering and managing workplace records. It is important that protocols be well-documented and easily accessible to all employees

Some standard principles and best practices to keep in mind when setting up a documentation process are these:

  • Clarity and Completeness: All documents should be clear, concise, and include all necessary information.
  • Consistency: Documentation practices should be applied uniformly across all employees and situations. Consistent procedures help prevent discrimination claims and reinforce equitable treatment.
  • Timeliness: Documents should be completed and filed promptly. Delays in documentation can lead to misunderstandings and can complicate legal matters.
  • Compliance with Policies: Ensure that all documentation adheres to company policies and relevant laws, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or disability regulations.
  • Proper Signatures and Authentication: All documents, especially those related to medical leave or employee status, should include appropriate signatures or electronic verifications to validate authenticity.
  • Confidentiality: Protect sensitive information by limiting access to documentation to authorized personnel only. Ensure that personal and medical information is handled with care.
  • Record-Keeping: Maintain organized and easily accessible records. This includes keeping track of documents for the required retention period as dictated by laws or company policy.
  • Regular Reviews and Updates: Periodically review documentation practices to ensure they remain effective and compliant with any changes in regulations or company policies.

It is another good practice to educate all new employees on these documentation policies from the moment they start the job, so they understand the expectations. If it is not part of their onboarding process, at the very least, employers should make it clear where employees can attain such information.

Proper Documentation Practices in the Context of Jones v. GPA

In Jones v. Georgia Ports Authority, Eric Jones (“Jones”) was an employee of the Georgia Ports Authority (“GPA”) and suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD.

In August of 2018, Jones went out on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The basis of Jones’ leave request was that his PTSD was being exacerbated due to his immediate supervisor fostering a stressful work environment. Jones extended his leave twice and then sought to return to work while seeking to be transferred to a less stressful area in the workplace.

GPA’s standard policy states that when an employee is seeking to return to work from leave that lasts longer than three days, GPA requires the employee to provide a doctor’s note asserting that it is safe for them to return to work.

Due to Jones’s leave lasting longer than three days, he was required to submit a doctor’s note according to company policy. The doctor’s note provided by Jones stated that Jones “‘report[ed] he was able to return to work on January 25, 2019, and noted Jones needed to continue his psychiatric follow-up appointments and to attend individual or group therapy.”

The doctor’s note did include Jones’ doctor’s contact information and was written on letterhead of the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs; however, the note did not include a physician’s signature, electronic or otherwise.

Jones also set an appointment with the company-appointed physician before his return date. The physician unfortunately had to cancel his appointment due to an emergency. Furthermore, the rescheduled appointment was canceled once more a week later.

Jones’s Termination & Retaliation Suit

Upon receiving the note provided by Jones, GPA reviewed it and deemed that the letter was insufficient due to the lack of signature and lack of clarity regarding Jones’ readiness to return to work. GPA then terminated Jones in February 2019 and cited the reason for termination was due to the inadequate doctor’s note.

GPA noted in the case that they could have taken steps to verify the doctor’s note by reaching out to Jones’ doctor. However, they also asserted that it was not part of their standard policy to follow up or pursue verification of doctor’s notes if they did not meet their set requirements.

Jones filed a complaint against GPA after his termination. He alleged that GPA had denied his reasonable accommodation request and that he was unlawfully terminated from his employment.

At the district court, GPA filed a motion for summary judgment wherein it argued that the termination was based on non-discriminatory grounds, which was Jones’ failure to provide a doctor’s note that was sufficient. Jones argued that GPA’s reason was just a pretext, a false reason to hide the employer’s true intention.

Jones’s argument also included the doctor’s note he submitted to GPA as well as the fact that he had rescheduled his health appointment with GPA’s physician, among other things. The district court ruled in favor of GPA’s motion for summary judgment and Jones appealed.

Court Rules in Favor of GPA

The Eleventh Circuit Court affirmed the summary judgment finding that Jones failed to meet his burden of proof, as he lacked evidence to support his argument that GPA’s reason for termination was a pretext.

The Court noted that GPA’s failure to verify the unsigned doctor’s note or lack of effort to obtain a clear recommendation from Jones’ doctor did not indicate discriminatory intent. The evidence presented by GPA during the case showed that GPA typically did not follow up on or verify noncompliant doctor’s notes with any other employees, and Jones did not provide any evidence that rebutted GPA’s position.

The court also concluded that the unsigned doctor’s note did not indicate Jones’ ability to return to work, which also supported GPA’s decision to terminate.

What Can Employers Learn from this Ruling?

It is important to note that there are varying factors that may result in a different outcome for other cases. For example, Nevada falls under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, not the Eleventh Circuit. As such, if this case was filed in the Ninth Circuit the outcome might have been different.

However, there is one important lesson employers in Nevada should take from this case, which is how necessary it is for employers to have consistent practices when making employment decisions, particularly when these issues involve required documentation for returning to work from extended leaves of absence.

The Eleventh Circuit ruling, in this case, emphasizes an employer’s right to discharge an employee for a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, such as submitting required paperwork that is incomplete, which constitutes a basis for employment termination consistent with company practice.

If GPA had been unable to show that they were consistent in their requirements for documentation and their procedure when it came to any doctor’s notes which they deemed insufficient, or if there was proof of the company making exceptions to this rule in the past, they would have likely lost this case.

Conclusion— Consistency is Key to any Proper Documentation Process

This case effectively shows employers that it is within their rights to terminate an employee due to inadequate or improperly documented paperwork. However, employers must establish clear policies regarding documentation and must apply these policies consistently in all situations to ensure that their employees are treated fairly and equitably. By doing so, organizations can mitigate legal risks, like wrongful termination suits, and foster a more supportive work environment.