Debbie Stekloff v. St. John's Mercy Health Systems

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[w]e do not read § 2613(c)(1) as requiring an employer to obtain a second opinion or else waive any future opportunity to contest the validity of the certification”
• reviewing federal district court’s grant of partial summary judgment on FMLA claim despite remand of state-law claims
• refusing to “read § 2613(c)(1) as requiring an employer to obtain a second opinion or else waive any future opportunity to contest the validity of the certification”
• “We think, in other words, contrary to the position of St. John’s, that the concept of ‘serious health condition’ was meant to be ‘broad,’ see S. Rep. No. 103-3, at 28 (1993
• “there may be some parallels between the ADA and FMLA, but applicable regulations explicitly state that ADA’s ‘disability’ and the FMLA’s ‘serious health condition’ are different concepts, and must be analyzed separately.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).