Tagged: Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently issued a Final Rule revising the definition of “spouse” under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to include same-sex spouses for purposes of FMLA leave, regardless of the couple’s state of residence. Under the prior FMLA regulations, whether or not an employee had a “spouse” was determined by the law of the state where the employee resided. Notably, however, the Final Rule does not expand the definition of “spouse” to include domestic partners. Rather, only employees who are legally married are covered under the new regulations. The Final Rule takes effect on March 27, 2015.
In a recent case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges Inc., an employee who did not return to work until after her 12 weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) had expired was able to avoid summary judgment against her because her employer was unable to come up with any hard evidence that she had actually received the FMLA notices mailed to her while on leave. The decision is a clear warning to employers that they run a real risk in FMLA litigation that notices sent by ordinary mail to an employee on leave may not carry the day.
Keeping track of all of the state and federal family and medical leave laws, paid family leave laws, and workers’ compensation and disability laws is difficult for any business owner or HR professional. Properly determining leave eligibility and ensuring that leave is not abused is even harder and generates the most mistakes and lawsuits.
On July 17, 2013, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed into law the New Jersey Security and Financial Empowerment Act (NJ SAFE Act). Effective October 1, 2013, the law requires private and public employers with at least 25 employees to provide unpaid leave to any employee who was a victim of domestic violence or whose child, parent, spouse, domestic partner, or civil union partner was a victim of domestic violence.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. Windsor, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act provision limiting the federal definition of marriage to legal unions between one man and one woman, has left employers and employees alike scratching their heads regarding what the ruling means for family and medical leaves and employee benefits. Will compliance with Windsor require a bit more work for in-house counsel and human resources professionals? In the short term, yes. And given the likelihood of further changes in state marriage laws and federal agency guidance on numerous issues stemming from the Windsor ruling, continued monitoring and future adjustments are to be expected. But when the full impact of the Windsor decision shakes out, the end result should be equal treatment of same-sex couples with regard to leaves and employee benefits and fewer administrative burdens for companies in managing these benefits – changes that should be welcome to same-sex couples and employers alike.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a critical decision on June 26, 2013, striking down a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) that limited the definition of marriage for federal purposes to unions of opposite-sex couples. The Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor will have far-reaching implications for employers, at least in those states that recognize same-sex marriages, in terms of leave administration, benefits eligibility and workplace protections. In another case decided the same day, Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court let stand a Federal District Court ruling in California that an amendment to the California Constitution limiting marriage to opposite sex couples was unconstitutional. In neither case did the Court require all states to recognize same-sex marriages.
At the Gibbons Second Annual Employment & Labor Law Conference last month, one panel discussion focused on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) recent activity and enforcement priorities. Among the panelists were Corrado Gigante, Director of the Newark Area Office of the EEOC, and Gibbons Directors, Christine Amalfe, Kelly Ann Bird and Susan Nardone.
A Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) plaintiff’s leave was proven fraudulent through her Facebook postings, resulting in summary judgment for her employer, dismissing her complaint. The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan concluded that the employer’s reason for her termination was legitimate and unrelated to her exercise of FMLA rights.
On February 6, 2013, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) published final regulations that amend the Family and Medical Leave Act’s (“FMLA”) military leave provisions and eligibility requirements for pilots and flight crews. Other changes impacting the minimum increments of time allowable for measuring FMLA leave and recordkeeping requirements are also part of the final regulations. The new regulations take effect on March 8, 2013, giving employers only a few weeks to ensure that their policies and forms are updated.
Pregnant employees who seek accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) need not be offered special treatment, the Fourth Circuit ruled on January 9, 2013. The ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals “on the basis of disability.” The PDA, enacted in 1978, amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to specifically prohibit discrimination in employment “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”
