Sheesh, as if administering the Family and Medical Leave Act isn’t complicated enough, here’s yet another legal wrinkle to consider.
I read a news brief on Business Management Daily that ran through the details of a case involving Sonia Figueroa, who worked as a housekeeper for an Embassy Suites hotel. Apparently, Figueroa missed quite a bit of work for various health reasons that was covered by FMLA as intermittent leave.
Her company’s HR department — trying to take the FMLA bull by the horns — sought to get out ahead of future intermittent leave requests by asking that Figueroa complete medical certification forms showing she had a “serious health condition” that required intermittent FMLA leave.
However, HR was asking for certification for leave that Figueroa hadn’t yet even requested. And that, folks, is where things got dicey.
Figueroa sued, alleging she’d been forced to take FMLA involuntarily and that by asking for medical certification, the HR department had interfered with her right to FMLA.
Lordy. This is just a giant Pandora’s box of benefits evils. The court hearing the case thought so too, because they opted not to rule at all on whether Figueroa had been forced into FMLA. Instead, according to BMD, the court only said that under the facts of the case, Figueroa had no FMLA interference suit because she was not unable to perform her job when told not to come to work.
What do you think? Was Figueroa forced to take FMLA involuntarily? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Already Registered?
If you have already registered to Employee Benefit Views, please use the form below to login. When completed you will immediately be directed to post a comment.
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
7 Comment(s)
Posted by: jack45 | March 30, 2012 10:52 PM
This is definitely an important act for a long of people. This helps a lot of people with health issues not to lose their job. This is definitely an act that needs to stay around. Research chemicals
Report this Comment
Posted by: keyra_hunt | March 21, 2012 3:30 AM
Apart from FMLA, there are certainly other legal issues that can arise in the justice area. For instance, the criminal defense San Francisco representatives have a lot to work lately on all sorts of cases. Legal standards may vary in content and details from time to time, but that`s what attorneys do, they update their work strategies accordingly to the latest law regulations.
Report this Comment
Posted by: kathleenk | December 27, 2011 12:10 PM
So fellow Americans, when will we wake up and jump out of the pot before we are completely boiled in bureaucracy and taxes to provide it? Government does not protect or grow wealth, it only consumes it. And there are not enough bureaucrats, laws or taxes in the world to provide people all of the "rights" and "security" they think they deserve. We are choking our once great country to death.
We have one more chance in 2012 (perhaps) and then it will most certainly be too late.
--DanielB
Report this Comment
Posted by: Karen B | December 27, 2011 11:35 AM
I was of the understanding that the 2009 changes to FMLA law/regs clearly allow the employer to denote time taken as FMLA leave if the employee is out due to reason qualifying under FMLA. The employer is to inform the employee that they are effectively on FMLA and provide all relevant legalities the employee should be aware of.
Report this Comment
Posted by: DebbieG | December 22, 2011 8:44 AM
So what is the correct answer? Thanks.
Report this Comment
Posted by: Unknown | December 21, 2011 2:36 PM
I remember reading a case a few years back - the employer was cited for NOT counting leave as FMLA because an employee's behavior had drastically changed. The employee was subsequently diagnosed as bi-polar. The ruling was based on the idea that the employer should have recognized that the employee's behavior change was FMLA eligible. You just can't win.
Report this Comment
Posted by: RWakefield | December 21, 2011 2:22 PM
About 6 years ago, when I was with a different company, I went to an FMLA administrative seminar - held by, yes, someone from the DOL.
We were told that as employers, if the abscense was FMLA eligible, we were required under the law to act on behalf of the employee to protect his or her FMLA rights.
In this case the Employer took the actions that the DOL considers (or did at the time) the legal standard -- as postulated by the Government Emloyed leader of the Seminar. And besides, why would someone sue? Was she trying to save her FMLA for some future, planned illness?
Report this Comment
Add Your Comments...