CA · jury_instructions
CACI No. 2611
Affirmative Defense—Fitness for Duty Statement
[Name of defendant] claims that [he/she/ nonbinary pronoun/it] refused to
return [name of plaintiff] to work because [he/she/ nonbinary pronoun] did
not provide a written statement from [his/her/ nonbinary pronoun] health-care provider that [he/she/ nonbinary pronoun] was fit to return to work.
To succeed, [name of defendant] must prove both of the following:
1. That [name of defendant] has a uniformly applied practice or
policy that requires employees on leave because of their own
serious health condition to provide a written statement from their
health-care provider that they are able to return to work; and
2. That [name of plaintiff] did not provide [name of defendant] with a
written statement from [his/her/ nonbinary pronoun] health-care
provider of [his/her/ nonbinary pronoun] fitness to return to work.
New September 2003
Provenance
- Source
- courts.ca.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- caci-2025
- Content hash
c53e256da099560ac61f1c88334c7c58523848622c371a1e5b651a5e608654a7
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.