“Trust, but verify,” the Russian proverb used often by former President Ronald Reagan, suggests an approach many employers would welcome when it comes to employee use of intermittent leave under the FMLA.
As you know in the past we have provided updates regarding changes with respect to the leave laws. Now on February 21, 2014, California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing Council published proposed amendments to the CFRA regulations.
The FMLA provides an eligible employee the right to 12 workweeks of leave to care for the employee’s spouse, child or parent with a serious health condition.
A recent federal appellate court decision illustrates how employees may limit their rights by affirmatively choosing to designate time-off as vacation time rather than as leave protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
On February 25, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., holding that employees who affirmatively decline to take FMLA leave do not have the protections of FMLA.
It has been a long time since we talked about the Family and Medical Leave Act, but a couple of interesting and noteworthy decisions came out this week from Way Out West.
Regulating Intermittent FMLA Leave: May an Employer Request a Doctor’s Note for Each Intermittent FMLA Absence?
Intermittent leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) can pose a significant (and often frustrating) administrative and tracking burden on an employer.
Finding balance, being able to spend more time with children, aging parents, and still maintaining a job are hot topics we regularly see in the media.
No matter what position the EEOC might take, I’ll always take the position that an employee’sregular, reliable attendance is an essential function of the job.
An employee comes to your human resources department to request Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave for an upcoming surgery to address his longstanding back pain, which has caused him increasing difficulties at work.