If you grant time off to employees who aren’t yet eligible for
That means that once they hit the one-year mark, they become entitled to those 12 unpaid FMLA weeks—and terminating them could launch an FMLA lawsuit.
That wasn’t always the case. Until the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued revised regulations clarifying the issue last year, some courts took the view that only time actually spent at work counted toward the one-year requirement.
Recent case: On Jan. 2, 2006, Joseph Porcillo began working for Roma Foods as a district sales manager, selling pizza-related products to restaurants. In November 2006, Porcillo developed a lump in his abdomen. He went to his doctor, who immediately scheduled him for an operation to repair a hernia.
Porcillo asked to take all available sick and vacation days, plus short-term disability leave through the company plan. He expected to be off work a few weeks. Roma Foods approved his leave and extended it several times when his recovery slowed due to complications and an infection.
He finally returned to work after getting clearance from his doctors on Feb. 12, 2007. He was fired the next day for excessive absences.
Porcillo sued, alleging he hadn’t been informed of his and was entitled to reinstatement. He also claimed that his firing was retaliation for taking FMLA leave.
The company argued that it didn’t need to inform Porcillo of his FMLA rights because he was never eligible for FMLA leave. Therefore, Roma argued, he couldn’t have suffered retaliation either. It said that when he left work in November, he hadn’t worked a full year and therefore didn’t meet the minimum year of service requirement.
The court disagreed. It looked to the clarifying regulation issued by the DOL, which states that “an ineligible employee on non-FMLA leave may become eligible for FMLA leave while on leave (by meeting the 12-month requirement) and that any portion of the leave taken for a qualifying reason taken after the employee becomes eligible would be protected FMLA leave.”
Because Porcillo was out on approved leave, the time counted. The court also concluded that the clarification wasn’t a new rule, just the DOL’s explanation of an earlier regulation. Because it merely clarified, and wasn’t a new rule, it was applied retroactively to the leave Porcillo took in 2006 and 2007. The court ordered a trial. (Porcillo v. Vistar, No. 3:08-CV-1090, MD FL, 2010)
Final notes: Porcillo’s immediate supervisor also testified that he had never heard of the FMLA until after Porcillo was terminated. That ignorance may have contributed to the problems in this case. Porcillo never actually asked for FMLA leave because he apparently didn’t know about it, either. The fact that they didn’t know about the law doesn’t change a thing. Employees can still sue for interference and retaliation even if they didn’t know at the time that they might be eligible for FMLA leave.
Like what you've read? ...Republish it and share great business tips!
Attention: Readers, Publishers, Editors, Bloggers, Media, Webmasters and more...
We believe great content should be read and passed around. After all, knowledge IS power. And good business can become great with the right information at their fingertips. If you'd like to share any of the insightful articles on BusinessManagementDaily.com, you may republish or syndicate it without charge.
The only thing we ask is that you keep the article exactly as it was written and formatted. You also need to include an attribution statement and link to the article.
" This information is proudly provided by Business Management Daily.com: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/11298/keep-track-of-all-time-off-authorized-leave-counts-toward-employees-fmla-eligibility "
- Echoes of Virginia Tech: 'Copycat comments' lead to firings around U.S.
- When creating job descriptions, focus on 'essential functions' employees really perform
- Jury awards $150,000 to worker in Tarrant County retaliation case
- What are our legal options? It turns out, an employee who is suing us was a thief!
- Revise confidentiality policy to omit any hint it covers wages