Recently in Family and Medical Leave Category
Also, threatening to drag that employee outside and throw him in a ditch. Yeah, that may fracture a law or two. I'm thinking the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Heck, even the Taliban would frown on that.
I got more on this for you after the jump...
Five minutes ago, after taking the obligatory selfies and between games of Candy Crush, one of your employees texted (because, calling in, as if!) from an Ebola quarantine tent to alert you that she will be out of work for 21 days, while under observation for Ebola.
As an employer, what are your obligations? What workplace laws are implicated?
And, of course, because half of you are thinking it, can you just fire her?
Because this post has nothing to do with clicks or SEO -- nothing whatsoever -- click through for the answers...
Remember, over the Summer, when I blogged about how sending FMLA paperwork to an employee via first class mail is a big mistake.
Why? Because if the employee claims not to have received the paperwork, then you have no proof of delivery, and possible FMLA interference issues if the employee is somehow precluded from taking FMLA leave.
So, I offered three alternatives:
- Pick a method of delivery that requires a receipt/other proof of delivery with a signature, such as certified mail, overnight delivery.
- Hand-delivery at work (with a signature) is pretty good too.
- Or email, with a return email from the recipient acknowledging receipt.
Last week, in this opinion, a federal court in Michigan highlighted the importance of confirming receipt when emailing that FMLA paperwork:
Defendant had the right to require Plaintiff to recertify her FMLA leave....Specifically, the issue is whether Defendant (through FMLASource), by informing Plaintiff of the recertification requirement via email, gave Plaintiff proper notice of that requirement...The transmitting of an email, in the absence of any proof that the email had been opened and actually received, can only amount to proof of constructive notice.
Parenthetically, it's worth noting that, for FMLA re-certification, even oral notice to the employee would suffice. However, oral notice can often devolve into a "he-said/she-said" situation.
So, I'll say it again. When it comes to satisfying FMLA notice requirements, consult the list above and have proof that the notice was delivered.
Yep, that's what I said.
More on this after the jump...
Trial is over!
I'm coming atcha live and direct from the bloggerdome with a sweet defense verdict in my pocket. Yup, yup!
And what do I come back to? A precedential Third Circuit opinion discussing an employee's right to return to work from FMLA.
I'll cover that for you after the jump...
Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.
But, if you send FMLA paperwork to an employee by first class mail, then you're asking for trouble.
I'll show you why after the jump...
How many times has an employee provided you with an incomplete Family and Medical Leave Act certification? Oh, I don't know, maybe a missing return date...
If the FMLA leave is foreseeable, then the employee must provide the employer with the anticipated timing and duration of the leave. However, where the FMLA leave is unforeseeable -- think, car crash -- then that information can wait if the employee herself doesn't know her return date.
But that doesn't mean you -- yeah, you employer -- should let it go.
[Nope, not cueing any music here, m-kay...]
Do I have a case in point? You bet I do.
Suzan Gienapp, a residential nursing care facility employee, told her manager that she needed time off to care for her daughter, who was undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer. Apparently, this leave was unforeseeable.
While on leave, Ms. Gienapp mailed in an FMLA form, leaving blank a question about the expected duration for her covered leave. Although the parties debated whether the employer made a verbal request for a return date, there was no dispute that Ms. Gienapp complied with the company's monthly call-in requirements to provide updates. The parties also agree that the company never made a written request for a return date.
Ultimately, based on a statement on the FMLA paperwork that the daughter may require assistance through July 2011, the company concluded that Ms. Gienapp would not be able to return to work within the 12-week leave period. Thus, it replaced her. And when Ms. Gienapp later reported for work on March 29, before her leave would otherwise have expired, but after she had been replaced, the company told her that she no longer had a job.
FMLA violation? Assuming the truth of Ms. Gineapp's story, yep.
And here's why, according to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (opinion here)
"Harbor Crest told Gienapp to call in monthly, and it is conceded that she did so....We assume therefore that Gienapp complied with Harbor Crest's policies....What seems to have happened instead is that Chattic drew an unwarranted inference from the physician's statement in the original form and confused the anticipated duration of the daughter's need for care with the anticipated duration of Gienapp's absence from work, even though these are logically distinct."
- Communicate. Don't just call, but write/email employees on unforeseen FMLA leave to ascertain the timing of FMLA leave and memorialize those efforts.
- Document. Record your efforts to communicate with employees regarding FMLA leave and return to work.
- Enforce. Require employees to follow your call-in rules for unforeseeable leave and, thereafter, provide periodic updates on return to work.
Folks, I get the feeling you may be inundated with extra blog posts over the next few days.
That is, I'm punching this post out from the airport, as I await my flight to Orlando, where I'll be attending the
Gathering of the Juggalos 2014 SHRM Annual Conference and Expo.
Two speaking gigs for me and lot of other conference time to listen, learn, and blog.
My first session is Tuesday, where I'll present "Meeting the Challenges That Leaves of Absence and Attendance Issues Present Under the FMLA and ADA."
So, the timing of last week's announcement from the U.S. Department of Labor couldn't have come at a better time.
(Thanks for holding off on the announcement. Let me know what you think of that bottle of 12-year I sent you).
Same-sex couple will enjoy the same FMLA rights.
The Family and Medical Leave Act permits eligible employees to take leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition. The FMLA defines family member as "a husband or wife as defined or recognized under State law for purposes of marriage in the State where the employee resides." So, if your employee resides in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, then that employee can take leave under the FMLA to care for a spouse with a serious health condition.
The Department proposes to define spouse as follows:
"Spouse, as defined in the statute, means a husband or wife. For purposes of this definition, husband or wife refers to the other person with whom an individual entered into marriage as defined or recognized under State law for purposes of marriage in the State in which the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside of any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and could have been entered into in at least one State. This definition includes an individual in a same-sex or common law marriage that either (1) was entered into in a State that recognizes such marriages or, (2) if entered into outside of any State, is valid in the place where entered into and could have been entered into in at least one State."
Here's the long and short of it, under the proposed rule, all legally married couples (opposite-sex, same-sex, common-law) would have the same FMLA rights, regardless of residence.
Be heard on this proposed rule.
If you have comments on the proposed rule, you can leave them below. But, until the Department recognizes this blog as an official forum for public comment -- mailing second bottle of scotch shortly -- you can leave comments for the rule officially the the Department here.
And by coffee, I mean turkey legs and frozen blueberry-mango rum lemonade.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down...
You see that badge over there? You know what I had to do to get that badge?
Buy the full version of Photoshop Spike the Kool-Aid of everyone on the SHRM Annual Conference Speaker Selection Committee
I beat out thousands (trillions?) of other speaker submissions to be selected as a SHRM 2014 Annual Conference & Exposition speaker.
And, crew, I got selected to speak not once, but twice. Know what that means? ***Ducks Lucifer's pitchfork*** Say, is it just me, or do any of you smell sulfur?
That's a lot of pressure. Let's just hope I remember to wear pants. Pretty sure I can pull it off. (The pants and the presentations).
But otherwise, when I'm not speaking, Your Blogness is up for whatever; not in a Bud Light "Up for Whatever" kinda way. See, turkey legs, et al, supra. Rather, I'd like to meet some of my readers -- the ones that aren't crazy stalkers.
So, if you're not a crazy stalker, and you like this blog, and you're gonna be at SHRM14, then drop me a line, and let's plan some time to meet. I look forward to catching up.
See you in Orlando.
Now, before I get to the FMLA, let me talk about another recent decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court. On Monday, the high court ruled (here) that:
- Claims asserted under the "improper quality of patient care" provision of New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act "must be premised upon a reasonable belief that the employer has violated a law, rule, regulation, declaratory ruling adopted pursuant to law, or a professional code of ethics that governs the employer and differentiates between acceptable and unacceptable conduct in the employer's delivery of patient care."
- A plaintiff asserting that his or her employer's conduct is incompatible with a "clear mandate of public policy concerning the public health" must, at a minimum, identify authority that applies to the "activity, policy or practice" of the employer.
To the two of you who care about that opinion, you're welcome. And, to the rest of you who slogged through this post to here, huzzah! Your reward is this #LockInLuc campaign ad (h/t Deadspin) and a post about the FMLA.
(Ok, to keep reading, here's some bribery: the ESPN highlights from yesterday's 0-0 World Cup "thriller" between Mexico and Brazil....)
Uh, yeah, FMLA time.
So, I read this opinion yesterday from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and I was all like, "What am I missing here?"
The court reminded us that an FMLA interference action has nothing to do with discrimination. Instead, what matters is whether the employer provided the employee with the entitlements guaranteed by the FMLA."
In other words, if an employee is FMLA eligible, requests FMLA from an FMLA-qualifying employer, gets FMLA leave, feels better, returns from FMLA leave, and gets fired, that's not FMLA interference.
Employer takeaway: Think twice before firing an employee on the day the employee returns from FMLA leave. It may not be FMLA interference, but you'll find yourself defending an FMLA retaliation claim.
In two weeks, at the SHRM Annual Conference, I'll be presenting "Meeting the Challenges That Leaves of Absence and Attendance Issues Present Under the FMLA and ADA."
The good news is that I have 75 minutes of HR greatness planned for my SHRM sesh. The bad news is that my presentation is at 7:00 AM on the day after the #SHRM14 Social Bash at the Hard Rock Cafe.
So, let's just say
"Hey, thanks a lot, SHRM!" that I anticipate an intimate gathering of HR hardcore FMLA/ADAthletes for my spiel.
What do you think? Should I provide coffee or hair of the dog? Irish Coffee it is!
If, somehow, you miss my session because
[insert another inappropriate comment here] or you won't be at the SHRM Annual Conference, you're not our of luck. Because...
Me, you, Twitter, today 3 pm. Your FMLA/ADA questions; my answers. Details here.
Let's do this, yo.
So, check this out.
I read this case yesterday about an employee who provided her company with a November 12 doctor's note, requesting that her hours be reduced due to her high-risk pregnancy. The employee would have become eligible for coverage under the Family and Medical Leave Act on November 17.
The company fired her on November 16.
Man, that is cold! But is it unlawful?
To prevail on her FMLA interference claim, an employee must show, among other things, that she is eligible for FMLA coverage.
She gives notice on November 13 when she's not eligible. But the FMLA will start on November 17, when she is eligible. And the company fires her in the interim.
The Court said, under the circumstances, yes:
The determination of whether an employee . . . has been employed by the employer for a total of at least 12 months must be made as of the date the FMLA leave is to start. An employee may be on non-FMLA leave at the time he or she meets the 12-month eligibility requirement, and in that event, any portion of the leave taken for an FMLA-qualifying reason after the employee meets the eligibility requirement would be FMLA leave.
* * *
Defendant does not contend that Wages was not entitled to use sick leave, personal leave, or vacation time to cover her reduced time until she became FMLA-eligible. The only reason Wages was not able to reach her eligibility date is because Defendant fired her before she could do so. The Court therefore finds that Wages was an eligible employee under the framework established by the FMLA.
In a nutshell, can you terminate an FMLA-seeking employee just before his/her one-year anniversary with the company?
Not if that employee can bridge the gap between FMLA-ineligible and FMLA-eligible by using accrued time off.
But, under certain circumstances, yes. For example, if that employee seeks FMLA to care for a spouse with a serious health condition and the employee will run out of accrued time off before becoming FMLA-eligible, then yes.
However, if you're dealing with an employee who seeks FMLA leave for his/her own serious health condition, even if the employee will run out of accrued time off before becoming FMLA-eligible, firing that employee could run afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA requires reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. And since many serious health conditions qualify as disabilities too. And time off may be a reasonable accommodation. You smell what I'm cookin'?
Trust me, it won't end up well for you.
If you're on LinkedIn, consider joining the discussion of news, trends and insights in employment law, HR, and the workplace, by becoming a member of The Employer Handbook LinkedIn Group. Tell 'em Meyer sent you.
ICYMI, yesterday, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled in this opinion that PA's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional.
How fitting that the first gay couple in Philadelphia to obtain a marriage license was Kerry Smith and Rue Landau, who serves as the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations (PCHR). Congratulations, Rue and Kerry!
So, now that, for the time being, gay marriage is legal in the Keystone State, how does this impact local employers? Find out after the jump...
* * *