Category Archives: FMLA Rights

Does Your Attendance Policy Violate the FMLA?

Contributed by Steven Jados, September 5, 2019

The recent decision in Dyer v. Ventra Sandusky, LLC, issued by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee), should motivate employers to take another look at whether their attendance policies run afoul of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

There are plenty of gray areas in the law, but it is generally clear that employees are not to be disciplined because they are absent for FMLA-covered reasons. That also means that employees should not accumulate attendance “points,” e.g., under a no-fault attendance policy, for FMLA-covered absences when such points can contribute to discipline up to and including termination of employment.

Clocking In

To its credit, the employer in Dyer did not assign attendance points for FMLA-covered absences.  But unfortunately for the employer, that is not the end of the story.

Under the employer’s attendance policy, employees were eligible for a one-point “reduction” of their attendance point balance for every 30-day period in which the employee had “perfect attendance.” The employer’s definition of perfect attendance was not self-explanatory.  For instance, an employee could be absent for several different reasons — including vacation, bereavement, jury duty, military duty, holidays, and union leave — and still have “perfect attendance” and eligibility for attendance point reductions.

However, FMLA-covered absences were not included among the types of absences that preserved perfect attendance status and point-reduction eligibility. And if an employee had a FMLA-covered absence, his progress toward the 30-day point reduction goal was reset to zero.

The Sixth Circuit noted that the FMLA’s regulations generally require that an employee not lose benefits while on FMLA leave. Because attendance point reductions (and progress toward such reductions) are benefits, the Sixth Circuit noted that, at the very least, progress toward the 30-day goal should be frozen while employees are on FMLA leave, rather than being reset to zero. The court also indicated that if other “equivalent,” but non-FMLA forms of leave were counted toward the 30-day goal, then FMLA-covered absences should also be counted toward the 30-day goal.

The bottom line is that the Dyer decision instructs employers that disciplinary and benefit policies must be closely scrutinized to determine whether they might dissuade employees from taking FMLA leave — or otherwise harm employees who take FMLA leave. If harm results, or if employees are faced with the decision of taking FMLA leave or forgoing benefits, potential exposure to liability under the FMLA may exist.

Employee States FMLA Claim Despite Never Having Taken Qualifying Leave

Contributed by Suzanne Newcomb

Last week a Federal District Court ruled a disgruntled former employee could proceed with her interference and retaliation claims under the FMLA even though she never actually took any FMLA-qualifying leave. The case serves as a reminder of just how easily an employee triggers the statute’s broad protections.

out of office signThe former employee submitted completed FMLA paperwork relating to a chronic condition and the employer approved her request to take intermittent leave, as needed, in the future. She never actually took leave under the statute and, in fact, she did not even ask for any leave after her employer approved her request for intermittent leave. Yet, when she was terminated some time later, she sued claiming her employer interfered with her FMLA rights and retaliated against her for exercising her FMLA protected rights. Her employer argued it could not have “interfered with” her FMLA rights or retaliated against her for taking FMLA leave, because she had never actually taken or asked to take leave under the statute. The Court disagreed and allowed her claims to proceed.

The FMLA requires employees to provide advance notice of their need for leave whenever possible and therefore, the court reasoned, it is only logical that the statute’s employee protections trigger as soon as the employee takes any action that invokes her rights under the statute. The retaliation claim is even more straight-forward. The plain language of the statute clearly prohibits retaliation against an employee who exercises or attempts to exercise her FMLA rights. An employee is not required to actually take leave in order to activate the statute’s protections.

This and other similar decisions serve as a reminder that an employee exercises her protected FMLA rights, and therefore triggers the statute’s protections, by simply putting her employer on notice of her possible need for a leave that may qualify under the Act. This could be by requesting, completing or submitting FMLA paperwork, but it does not have to be so formalized. In fact, an employee is not required to say “FMLA” or even “medical leave” in order to trigger the FMLA’s protection. Anything that puts the employer on notice that an absence could be FMLA-qualifying or that an employee may need leave for a qualifying reason at some point in the future, could trigger the employer’s FMLA obligations and the notice requirements.