FMLA lawsuits were up in 2003, but FMLA law is siding with employers more often

Employers seem to be doing a better job complying with FMLA law

While the number of FMLA lawsuits filed increased slightly, from 3,501 in 2002 to 3,565 in 2003, the number of findings against employers dropped by 4.7%, from 1,735 to 1,654.

Major triggers of FMLA lawsuits

It looks as though managers understand FMLA law – for the most part. According to government figures, the primary reasons for FMLA complaints against employees were:

These figures indicate areas where managers seem to be getting it – and areas where managers ought to be doing a better job avoiding FMLA lawsuits.

HR should remind managers that if the organization has more than 50 employees, it must honor requests for leave from eligible workers with a legitimate need for FMLA leave.

Here are some examples of recent FMLA lawsuits.

Source: FMLANews.

Loss of bonus leave didn’t violate FMLA law

Here’s a variation on FMLA lawsuits: A worker sued because he lost bonus time off as a result of taking FMLA leave.

Tough bananas, a court said. The worker wasn’t denied a monetary attendance bonus because of FMLA leave, which would have been against FMLA law.

The bonus time off was a benefit, not salary, and the employer didn’t have to give the worker an unearned benefit just because of FMLA.

The worker took paid sick leave as his FMLA time off. Because the bonus was based on not taking sick leave, he lost the bonus – fair and square.

Cite: Chubb v. City of Omaha.

More FMLA lawsuits: Worker sued after refusing family medical leave

Company met its FMLA law obligations by offering employee leave

If you offer an employee FMLA leave but he refuses it, then turns around and sues you for depriving him of his rights under FMLA law, could he win in court?

Facts of the case

An employee told his boss that he was planning to undergo gender reassignment surgery. When informed that he qualified for leave under FMLA law, he refused because he didn’t want to provide medical certification. Instead, he took personal leave.

Under the employer’s personal leave policy, the employee was entitled to up to 13 weeks off. At the expiration of the leave, he could return to work if a position was available, but his pre-leave position wouldn’t be held for him.

After recovering from surgery, the employee – who was now a female – requested reinstatement. Although her pre-leave job wasn’t available, she was rehired for another position.

Two months later, she was fired for poor performance. She filed a lawsuit, claiming that her employer had violated FMLA law by giving her personal leave instead of FMLA leave.

The jury’s verdict

A jury found in favor of the employer. The jury believed that the employee had been offered family medical leave in accordance with FMLA law and had refused it. Back when the employee was a male, he’d made an informed decision not to provide medical certification and to take the company’s personal leave instead of FMLA leave.

In the eyes of FMLA law, the employer met its obligation by informing the employee of his eligibility for family medical leave.

Cite: Sanders v. May Dept. Stores, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, No. 01-3344, 1/9/03.

Employer properly denied leave under FMLA law

Employees seeking FMLA leave for personal sickness (as opposed to caring for a sick family member or having or adopting a child) must show that they have a serious health condition, that they’re incapacitated and that they can’t perform the basic duties of their jobs. A doctor’s note describing the worker’s diagnosis and treatment isn’t necessarily enough, as this case shows.

Two workers who were anxious about a coworker who’d harassed them in the past called in sick. They even got doctors’ notes saying that they were being treated for stress.

But the company didn’t buy their claims, and denied them FMLA leave.

The employees filed FMLA lawsuits, claiming that their rights under FMLA law had been violated. In court, the judge ruled against them.

True, they’d sought professional help from mental health-care providers and they’d been treated for a bona fide medical condition (stress).

But they couldn’t show any medical reason for why they were unable to work.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that the two employees spent their “sick days” performing routine daily activities – and that they could just as easily have been performing their jobs.

Cite: Jarvis v. Gerstenslager Co.