If, like many employers, you offer employees more than the required 12 weeks of unpaidin any given year, you may have a powerful response to a disability or discrimination lawsuit. The fact that you pay employees during FMLA leave or offer more generous leave terms can help prove that you aren’t an employer that resents sick workers and tries to drive them out.
Recent case: Shat worked as a Bloomberg investment banker for years, earning well over $300,000 annually. He then began having heart problems and developed related conditions. As a result, he missed months of work over a three-year period.
Each time, Bloomberg continued to pay him because it had a generous sick leave policy. For example, Shat received his entire salary while he was on medical leave for six months. He also received two raises after taking lengthy leaves.
When the company fired Shat for deteriorating performance, he sued. He claimed that he was being retaliated against for taking FMLA leave and that allegations ofwere just a sham to cover up the real reason he was terminated.
The court disagreed.
It reasoned that it was clear from Bloomberg’s policies and how well it treated Shat that it wasn’t likely to give employees generous leave benefits and then turn around and fire them for taking that leave. (Ben-Levy v. Bloomberg, L.P., et al., No. 11-Civ-1554, SD NY, 2012)
- Bush to halt Clinton-era rule opening UI funds for paid leave
- EEOC offers new guidance to avoid bias against employee/caregivers
- Do you approve dubious FMLA leave? You're not alone
- What are the basics of complying with the new Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act?
- Court: Employees must give employers chance to fix errors