|
Employment & Labor Publications U.S. SUPREME COURT LIMITS FAMILY/MEDICAL LEAVE Is an employee entitled to more than 12 weeks of unpaid leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (the "FMLA")? Most employers are aware that state and federal laws require employers with 50 or more employees to provide lengthy unpaid leaves of absence for employees suffering from or caring for close relatives with serious medical conditions. While many employers consider these laws onerous, others have adopted more generous leave policies that include paid leave and leaves in excess of those required by law. Until a recent U.S Supreme Court decision, Ragsdale v. Wolverine Worldwide, Inc., there were pitfalls, though, that could sink even the most generous of employers if they were not careful to comply with the precise letter of the law. Consider the following: In 1995, an employee began working in a factory in 1995. The following year, she was diagnosed with Hodgkins Disease. Under the company's medical leave plan, the employee was entitled to 7 months of unpaid sick leave, far in excess of the 3 months required by law. The employee requested and received a one month leave of absence on February 21, 1996 and asked for 30 day extensions at the end of the 7 months that followed. The company granted the first 6 requests and the employee missed 30 consecutive weeks of work. The company held the employee's position open and maintained her health benefits throughout the 30 weeks. When the employee sought a 7th 30 day extension, the company advised her that she had exhausted her 7 months under the company plan. After the company declined the employee's request for more leave or for permission to work on a part time basis, her employment was terminated when she failed to return to work. The employee then filed suit in Federal Court. She claimed that because the company had failed to specifically inform her that 12 weeks of her leave would count as FMLA leave, none of her leave counted against her FMLA entitlement and, therefore, she was entitled to 12 more weeks of leave. The company conceded that it had not given the employee specific notice that part of her absence would count as FMLA leave, but maintained that it had complied with the law by granting her 30 weeks of leave, more than twice what the FMLA requires. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S Supreme Court sided with the employer. In doing so, though, the Court was confronted with the challenge of determining whether federal regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor to implement the FMLA were consistent with the law and within the Secretary's authority. Indeed, the specific regulation relied upon by the employee in her lawsuit clearly supported her claim that if the employer failed to notify her that a portion of her leave would count against her FMLA entitlement, she would be entitled to another 12 weeks of leave. In analyzing this regulation in the context of the facts of this case, the Court held that the FMLA guaranteed the employee 12 weeks of leave during calendar year 1996, not the 42 weeks that she sought. The Ragsdale decision serves as a reality check for employers and employees. While employers may interpret the decision to somehow limit an employee's right to a lengthy leave of absence, the fact remains that although the Court refused to extend the company's leave requirement in this particular case, it can clearly be inferred that if the company had not offered such a lengthy leave in the first place, the Court might not have been as forgiving. |
