In a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Ninth Circuit Court in California held that an employee can affirmatively decline to use leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a district court finding of summary judgment in the employer’s favor in Demyanovich v. Cadon Plating & Coatings et al., concluding that Cadon Plating may be a covered employer under the FMLA based on its relationship with an affiliated company and that its termination of an employee almost immediately after he requested FMLA leave may have violated both the FMLA and ADA.
Sometimes, you can actually take an employee at her word. Even if she later claims she didn’t mean it. This happened in the case of Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., where the employee requested two weeks off to care for her father in Guatemala – a reason that would have been covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act, except that the employee said that she didn’t want FMLA leave.
Do you have that employee who takes intermittent Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave and is usually out on Mondays and Fridays? Is it possible for employers to verify FMLA abuse and prevent it? Although FMLA leave is highly protected by a complicated statutory and regulatory scheme, there are ways for employers to handle FMLA misuse and fraud without violating the employee’s rights.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected the appeal of a former City of Daytona Beach Fire Inspector who argued that the City improperly used her “personal health information” to defend itself against her lawsuit for interference under the Family Medical Leave Act.
The vacation request of an employee suffering from depression and anxiety did not qualify as a request for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), said the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In recent years, employers have been bombarded by increasing numbers of lawsuits by employees with mental disabilities alleging discrimination and retaliation.
While the principle seems straightforward, the Eleventh Circuit confirmed in Patrick Hurley v. Kent of Naples, Inc., et al.ss (11th Cir. March 20, 2014) that an employee must request FMLA-qualifying leave to garner the law’s protections. Requesting “potentially qualifying leave” is not enough.
Picture this: In one scenario, a maintenance worker takes an FMLA leave for “mental distress” but continues to deliver oil through his family business.
From the beginning of FMLA-time in 1993, the U.S. Department of Labor FMLA regulations have required employers to designate leave as FMLA leave “[w]hen the employer has enough information to determine whether the leave is being taken for a FMLA-qualifying reason.”