Are you up to speed on the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990? The following case demonstrates why now might be a good time to brush up on labor and employment laws.

Mark Debell began working as an operating room attendant at Brooklyn's Maimonides Medical Center in 2002. Seven years later, his longtime battle with chronic psoriasis caused a flare-up with the medical center's management that ended up in court.

Mr. Debell alleged that Maimonides failed to notify him of his rights under the FMLA, violated the FMLA by preventing him from being treated by physicians for his psoriasis and terminated him in response to his request for leave. He also alleged the medical center violated the ADA by refusing to offer him reasonable accommodations and ending his employment because of his skin condition.

Mr. Debell learned of the FMLA during new employee orientation, according to court documents. About 3 years after his hire in 2002, he took the first of several leaves of absence from the center for medical reasons, later returning to full-time employment on each occasion with no loss of pay or benefits.

Then, on Friday, April 3, 2009, Mr. Debell informed his immediate supervisor that his psoriasis would not let him work that day. The supervisor told him to go home, seek medical treatment and report to the executive director of perioperative services the following Monday.

Court records show, however, that Mr. Debell did not seek medical attention before returning to the medical center as planned on April 6. During the scheduled Monday morning meeting, he reportedly returned his hospital-issued beeper and staff ID badge. Mr. Debell claimed he was terminated after requesting to see a doctor who would provide treatments that would let him continue working. The hospital claimed Mr. Debell resigned. A Maimonides spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.

The FMLA allows up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for a serious health condition that makes working impossible or a chronic serious health condition that requires periodic visits to a healthcare provider for treatment. In order to claim FMLA interference, an employee must prove he gave adequate notice to his employer of his intention to leave. Maimonides argued that Mr. Debell was aware of the procedure for requesting FMLA leave - as he demonstrated by his numerous leaves of absence during previous years - but did not request FMLA leave in this case. However, according to the court, an employee is not required to request FMLA leave by name.

Mr. Debell also filed an FMLA retaliation claim, arguing he was terminated based on his request for time off. The medical center argued that Mr. Debell was let go because of "various instances of poor performance" that predated his FMLA application. However, it produced an affidavit from only one of Mr. Debell's supervisors to support the claim.

The court denied the medical center's motion to dismiss the FMLA interference and retaliation claims.

Individuals making claims under the ADA must show they suffer from physical impairments that limit the major life activity of working, note court records. In deposition testimony, however, Mr. Debell said, "I can still work." In addition, his dermatologist and primary care physician testified that psoriasis would not have prevented Mr. Debell from performing his job duties.

As a result, the court agreed to dismiss charges of ADA violations at the medical center's request.

Attorneys for Maimonides and Mr. Debell did not respond to requests for comment.

Daniel Cook