Judges cannot get involved in church dispute

[grumbler]

Good thing what I am talking about doesnt require anything approaching a "bright line".  As Garbon already pointed out in some cases the medical judgment can be based on less than objective data.

Exactly:  the case had no "bright line" as a medical determination of eligibility to return to work would require.  She was eligible for disability, and took it for a while.  She was not ineligible for work, and decided after a while to return.

fyi, there are many cases in which a doctors opinion as to fitness is questioned.  Those sorts of disputes are often resolved through arbitration in the unionized work force and litigation in the non unionized work force.

FYI, eligibility for disability isn't mutually exclusive with the ability to perform some work.  Disability pay is stopped if one returns to work (either full-time or, in case of part-time work, if income exceeds a specified level, which I believe varies by state).

The issue is whether the church had to take her back even when they had already hired a replacement because she went on disability.  That case would presumably have been litigated if she was not a cleric.

[crazy canuck]

I see we are heading down the rabbit hole of Grumbleresque semantics.

[dps]

Good thing what I am talking about doesnt require anything approaching a "bright line".  As Garbon already pointed out in some cases the medical judgment can be based on less than objective data.

Exactly:  the case had no "bright line" as a medical determination of eligibility to return to work would require.  She was eligible for disability, and took it for a while.  She was not ineligible for work, and decided after a while to return.

fyi, there are many cases in which a doctors opinion as to fitness is questioned.  Those sorts of disputes are often resolved through arbitration in the unionized work force and litigation in the non unionized work force.

FYI, eligibility for disability isn't mutually exclusive with the ability to perform some work.  Disability pay is stopped if one returns to work (either full-time or, in case of part-time work, if income exceeds a specified level, which I believe varies by state).

The issue is whether the church had to take her back even when they had already hired a replacement because she went on disability.  That case would presumably have been litigated if she was not a cleric.

Even though the article says that she went on "disability leave" I suspect that she actually went on leave under the FMLA, not on disability.  If that's the case, she would have had to have been certified by a doctor as need to go on FMLA leave, and a doctor would have to certify that she was ready to come back off of leave in order for her to return to work.

Being disabled and being on medical leave are NOT the same thing.  With most employers, there would be no such thing as "disability leave"--you're either an employee who's on FMLA leave, an employee who has a disability which the employer can make reasonable accomodation for (and if the employer could make such accomodation, you'd not be on leave, you'd still be working), or you're on disablilty--which generally is used to mean that you have been ruled to be disabled by a court of some sort (usually an administrative court, not a regular civil court) and are drawing some sort of disability income, in which case you're no longer an employee (though it gets more complicated in some jurisdictions where you can be legally considered "partially disabled").

[crazy canuck]

Being disabled and being on medical leave are NOT the same thing.  With most employers, there would be no such thing as "disability leave"--you're either an employee who's on FMLA leave, an employee who has a disability which the employer can make reasonable accomodation for (and if the employer could make such accomodation, you'd not be on leave, you'd still be working), or you're on disablilty--which generally is used to mean that you have been ruled to be disabled by a court of some sort (usually an administrative court, not a regular civil court) and are drawing some sort of disability income, in which case you're no longer an employee (though it gets more complicated in some jurisdictions where you can be legally considered "partially disabled").

Yeah, we have similar distinctions here.  I agree that "disability leave" was an inelegant description.   It is a term that is also frequently used here when what is actually occurring is that the employer is accomodating the employees absence from work while the employee draws some form of benefit either through a disability insurer or a government program.

What strikes me as odd in this case is that you would think that the public policy argument that we want employees to return to work as quickly as possible so as to reduce cost to insurers or government would win out.   

[dps]

What strikes me as odd in this case is that you would think that the public policy argument that we want employees to return to work as quickly as possible so as to reduce cost to insurers or government would win out.  

Huh?  Where did I say that?

[crazy canuck]

What strikes me as odd in this case is that you would think that the public policy argument that we want employees to return to work as quickly as possible so as to reduce cost to insurers or government would win out.   

Huh?  Where did I say that?

You didnt.  That is an implication that comes from the decision we are discussing.

[grumbler]

Even though the article says that she went on "disability leave" I suspect that she actually went on leave under the FMLA, not on disability.  If that's the case, she would have had to have been certified by a doctor as need to go on FMLA leave, and a doctor would have to certify that she was ready to come back off of leave in order for her to return to work.

Why would you suspect that she went on FMLA?  That doesn't fit the facts.  First, the church school doesn't employ more than 50 people, so doesn't come under FMLA.  Second, the school wouldn't have hired a teacher for the year if Perich was only taking the max 12 weeks of FMLA.  Third, if Perich was coming back, per FMLA, due to her condition no longer being disabling, she couldn't sue under ADA - she wan't disabled any more.

Being disabled and being on medical leave are NOT the same thing.  With most employers, there would be no such thing as "disability leave"--you're either an employee who's on FMLA leave, an employee who has a disability which the employer can make reasonable accomodation for (and if the employer could make such accomodation, you'd not be on leave, you'd still be working), or you're on disablilty--which generally is used to mean that you have been ruled to be disabled by a court of some sort (usually an administrative court, not a regular civil court) and are drawing some sort of disability income, in which case you're no longer an employee (though it gets more complicated in some jurisdictions where you can be legally considered "partially disabled").

She was on "disability leave."  The church had voluntarily given her full pay and benefits through Dec 2004.  After that, she was (apparently) on state disability pay.  In January, 2005, her doctor said that she could probably return to work in March or April, but when she passed this news on to the church, they said they had hired a replacement through the end of the school year (June), and that she couldn't return before then, because they couldn't afford to pay her and they had a contract with her replacement.  At that point (Jan 2005), she returned to the school and announced that, unless they resumed her pay and allowed her to resume her duties, she would sue under ADA.  Things got ugly after than, and in April the congregation revoked the "called" status that qualified her for the job.  The lawsuits ensued.

It is possible that she never applied for state disability pay - none of the summaries are clear on that.  It is clear, though, that she would have qualified, since her doctor said he would clear her for work some months down the road - meaning she wasn't cleared for work in January, 2005.

In Michigan, no court determination of disability is needed.  You merely apply to the state and a consultant determines your eligibility.

[dps]

Even though the article says that she went on "disability leave" I suspect that she actually went on leave under the FMLA, not on disability.  If that's the case, she would have had to have been certified by a doctor as need to go on FMLA leave, and a doctor would have to certify that she was ready to come back off of leave in order for her to return to work.

Why would you suspect that she went on FMLA?  That doesn't fit the facts.  First, the church school doesn't employ more than 50 people, so doesn't come under FMLA.  Second, the school wouldn't have hired a teacher for the year if Perich was only taking the max 12 weeks of FMLA.  Third, if Perich was coming back, per FMLA, due to her condition no longer being disabling, she couldn't sue under ADA - she wan't disabled any more.

Being disabled and being on medical leave are NOT the same thing.  With most employers, there would be no such thing as "disability leave"--you're either an employee who's on FMLA leave, an employee who has a disability which the employer can make reasonable accomodation for (and if the employer could make such accomodation, you'd not be on leave, you'd still be working), or you're on disablilty--which generally is used to mean that you have been ruled to be disabled by a court of some sort (usually an administrative court, not a regular civil court) and are drawing some sort of disability income, in which case you're no longer an employee (though it gets more complicated in some jurisdictions where you can be legally considered "partially disabled").

She was on "disability leave."  The church had voluntarily given her full pay and benefits through Dec 2004.  After that, she was (apparently) on state disability pay.  In January, 2005, her doctor said that she could probably return to work in March or April, but when she passed this news on to the church, they said they had hired a replacement through the end of the school year (June), and that she couldn't return before then, because they couldn't afford to pay her and they had a contract with her replacement.  At that point (Jan 2005), she returned to the school and announced that, unless they resumed her pay and allowed her to resume her duties, she would sue under ADA.  Things got ugly after than, and in April the congregation revoked the "called" status that qualified her for the job.  The lawsuits ensued.

It is possible that she never applied for state disability pay - none of the summaries are clear on that.  It is clear, though, that she would have qualified, since her doctor said he would clear her for work some months down the road - meaning she wasn't cleared for work in January, 2005.

In Michigan, no court determination of disability is needed.  You merely apply to the state and a consultant determines your eligibility.

I think that I clearly stated that all I was going on was what was in the OP.  Obviously, you have more information from somewhere else.

If your information is correct, though, I don't see where she has any case.  If she wasn't on FMLA leave and the church voluntarily gave her paid leave through December, then the church had every right to separate her and hire a permanent replacement (granting that there might be some differences under Michigan law, but those wouldn't be an issue for the federal courts anyway).  Since there doesn't seem to be any mention of refusal to make a reasonable accomodation for a disability, the ADA wouldn't apply either.  In fact, it seems that they were going out of their way to accomodate her, as there seems to be an implication that they would have her return after the school year, when her replacement's contract was up.  Apparantly, though, she just showed up and made herself obnoxious, and they didn't want to deal with that, so they just outright fired her.  If that's the case, I don't see where there's any legit claim of discrimination.

There's got to be more to this case than what's been posted here, but while I'm interested enough to post in this thread, I'm not actually interested enough to do any other research on it.  Not yet, anyway.