Make Us Your Home Page!
News Center details
Insurance products and services provided through our sister company
Georgia Health Administrators, Inc. DBA Omega HR Solutions, Inc.
Supreme Court FMLA Decision
Helps Define Leave Designation
Rule requiring "designation" for leave to count against employee's FMLA allotment invalidated by Supreme Court
Employers have been cautioned from the enactment of the Family Medical Leave Act to be certain to "designate" any qualifying employee leave as FMLA leave or risk it not counting against an employee's 12-week FMLA allotment -- conceivably granting an employee an additional 12 weeks of job-protected leave. Now, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the kind of penalty imposed on employers by an FMLA regulation -- that if an employer does not designate leave as FMLA leave, it will not count against an employee's FMLA entitlement -- is contrary to the Act's intent. Finding that the regulation in question, Section 825.700(a), creates an irrebuttable presumption that an employee's FMLA rights were impaired by failure to designate, the Court noted that the penalty imposed is unconnected to any actual harm the employee might have suffered from the employer's lapse. As a result, the Court invalidated the regulation. It was careful to note, however, that it was not deciding whether other notice and designation requirements were also invalid.
The case, Ragsdale et al. v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., Dkt. No. 00-6029, was decided March 19, 2002.
Employers have been cautioned from the enactment of the Family Medical Leave Act to be certain to "designate" any qualifying employee leave as FMLA leave or risk it not counting against an employee's 12-week FMLA allotment -- conceivably granting an employee an additional 12 weeks of job-protected leave. Now, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the kind of penalty imposed on employers by an FMLA regulation -- that if an employer does not designate leave as FMLA leave, it will not count against an employee's FMLA entitlement -- is contrary to the Act's intent. Finding that the regulation in question, Section 825.700(a), creates an irrebuttable presumption that an employee's FMLA rights were impaired by failure to designate, the Court noted that the penalty imposed is unconnected to any actual harm the employee might have suffered from the employer's lapse. As a result, the Court invalidated the regulation. It was careful to note, however, that it was not deciding whether other notice and designation requirements were also invalid.
The case, Ragsdale et al. v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., Dkt. No. 00-6029, was decided March 19, 2002.
Stay on top of the latest HR news as it may affect your company.
Site Designed by SupportGeeks
Maintained by Omega HR Solutions, Inc.