Federal Appeals Court Upholds Chicago Transit Authority’s FMLA Practices in Landmark Discrimination Case

Chicago, IL – June 26, 2026 – A significant legal victory for the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) was solidified today as a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the agency, affirming its adherence to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and dismissing claims of gender identity discrimination. The ruling, handed down by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, centers on the CTA’s handling of a former employee’s leave certification and the subsequent request for a third medical opinion, a process that the court found to be in full compliance with federal law.

The case, which has garnered attention for its implications regarding employer rights in managing FMLA requests and addressing potential abuse, revolved around a former CTA employee who sought leave under the FMLA. The core of the legal dispute lay in whether the CTA’s request for a third opinion on the employee’s medical certification was a legitimate exercise of its rights under the FMLA or an attempt to obstruct the employee’s access to protected leave. The appeals court’s detailed analysis meticulously examined the sequence of events and the CTA’s communication protocols, ultimately concluding that the agency acted appropriately and lawfully.

Chronology of the Case: From Initial Certification to Legal Scrutiny

The legal entanglement began when the former CTA employee presented an initial FMLA certification for leave, signed by a chiropractor. While the FMLA generally permits employees to obtain medical certifications from their healthcare providers of choice, it also grants employers the right to seek further verification under specific circumstances. In this instance, the CTA, through its vendor, flagged the initial certification for review.

According to court documents, the CTA’s vendor had noted an unusually high frequency of FMLA certifications submitted by this particular chiropractor for CTA employees. Furthermore, the vendor observed that the chiropractor frequently offered opinions that extended beyond the scope of his specialty, raising a flag for potential inconsistencies or a pattern of questionable certifications. This led the vendor to implement a general practice of requiring second opinions for certifications originating from this chiropractor.

Consequently, the CTA requested a second opinion on the employee’s leave certification. This second opinion was provided by an orthopedist, who subsequently concluded that the employee was not eligible for FMLA leave. This outcome triggered the FMLA’s provision allowing employers to seek a third medical opinion, provided it is obtained from a healthcare provider jointly designated by both the employer and the employee, when the first two opinions differ.

The CTA then informed the employee of the requirement for a third opinion and provided instructions on how to schedule this appointment. The agency followed up with a phone call to ensure the employee understood the process and to facilitate the scheduling. However, the employee reportedly did not respond to these communications or take the necessary steps to schedule the third opinion. After a period of several months following the orthopedist’s visit, and in the absence of the employee’s engagement in the third opinion process, the CTA ultimately denied the FMLA leave application.

The former employee then filed a lawsuit against the CTA, alleging both gender identity discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and wrongful denial of FMLA leave. The employee contended that the CTA had actively obstructed his ability to obtain the third opinion, citing the agency’s cessation of communication before the cancellation of his appointment.

Supporting Data: FMLA Provisions and Employer Rights

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision heavily relied on the explicit provisions of the FMLA, as interpreted by the U.S. Department of Labor. The FMLA allows employers to request second opinions on an employee’s leave certification if they have a reasonable doubt as to the validity of the original certification. This provision is designed to prevent potential abuse of the FMLA by ensuring that employees are genuinely in need of leave for a serious health condition.

The law further outlines a specific process when the second opinion contradicts the first. In such scenarios, the employer is permitted to require a third certification. Crucially, this third certification must be obtained from a healthcare provider chosen jointly by the employee and the employer. This stipulation ensures fairness and impartiality in the third opinion process.

In this particular case, the court found that the CTA had meticulously followed these FMLA guidelines. The agency demonstrated that it had provided the plaintiff with clear instructions regarding his duty to obtain medical certification and that its subsequent requests for second and third opinions were substantiated by the differing opinions from the healthcare providers. The court noted that the CTA’s vendor had a documented basis for questioning the initial certification due to the chiropractor’s history.

The district court had previously ruled that the employee’s claim of obstruction was inconsistent with the evidence. The 7th Circuit affirmed this finding, emphasizing that the CTA presented "properly substantiated assertions" that it had indeed informed the plaintiff of the scheduling procedures for the third opinion. The court also highlighted the employee’s lack of response to the CTA’s communication attempts as a key factor in the denial of his leave application.

Discrimination Claims Dismissed: No Causal Connection Found

Beyond the FMLA claims, the former employee also alleged that his termination was a result of gender identity discrimination, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This claim stemmed from the employee’s inquiries about CTA’s bathroom use policies and his advocacy for broader insurance coverage for gender transition-related procedures.

However, the 7th Circuit court found no causal connection between these activities and the employee’s discharge. The court concluded that neither the employee’s questions about bathroom policies nor his advocacy for insurance coverage played a role in the CTA’s decision to terminate his employment. The court’s analysis focused on the lack of evidence linking these protected activities to the adverse employment action. This aspect of the ruling reinforces the legal principle that while employers must not discriminate based on protected characteristics, they are not prohibited from taking action for legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons.

Implications for Employers and Employees: Navigating FMLA and Discrimination Law

This ruling carries significant weight for employers navigating the complexities of FMLA administration and for employees seeking to exercise their rights under the act. The 7th Circuit’s decision underscores the importance of meticulous documentation and clear communication when managing FMLA requests.

Attorneys who have previously advised HR Dive have consistently stressed the need for employers to exercise caution and due diligence when they suspect FMLA abuse. This case serves as a prime example of how an employer can successfully defend its actions when it can demonstrate a legitimate basis for questioning an employee’s FMLA certification and adheres to the prescribed legal procedures.

The ruling also provides further clarity on the extent to which employers can investigate suspected FMLA abuse. The 7th Circuit’s affirmation of the CTA’s actions aligns with a growing body of case law where courts have sided with employers who can present compelling evidence of FMLA misuse.

For instance, in a 2023 case, the 7th Circuit upheld summary judgment in favor of an automotive manufacturer that had an "honest suspicion" of FMLA abuse. In that instance, the company initiated a review after an employee and his spouse, also an employee, took overlapping FMLA leave on more than 20 occasions within a single year. This demonstrated that courts are increasingly willing to support employer investigations when there are clear indicators of potential misuse.

Furthermore, prior court decisions have validated various employer methods for investigating suspected FMLA abuse. A Delaware federal district court, in 2021, ruled that a company did not violate the FMLA when it hired an investigative agency to surveil an employee on leave. Video evidence showing the employee performing daily tasks that contradicted her doctor’s restrictions was used to demonstrate a violation of her leave. An appeals court later upheld this ruling, signaling a broad acceptance of employer efforts to root out FMLA abuse through legitimate investigative means.

The current ruling by the 7th Circuit not only reinforces these employer rights but also highlights the importance of employee responsiveness. The employee’s failure to engage with the CTA’s process for obtaining the third medical opinion was a critical factor in the court’s decision to uphold the denial of his FMLA leave. This serves as a reminder to employees that while FMLA provides essential protections, it also comes with responsibilities that must be met to avail of its benefits.

In conclusion, the 7th Circuit’s decision in favor of the Chicago Transit Authority offers a robust defense of an employer’s right to ensure the integrity of FMLA leave processes. It provides a clear roadmap for employers seeking to balance their legal obligations with the need to prevent FMLA abuse, while also emphasizing the importance of clear communication and adherence to statutory procedures for both parties involved.