FMLA Question

Discussion in 'Employment, Labor, Work Issues' started by tiff0922, Mar 7, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tiff0922

    tiff0922 Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I had a baby on 11/17/06 and got papers from the US Dept of Labor stating I was approved for FMLA with intermittent leave due to the birth of my child. In the FMLA policy attached to this, it states leave may be taken "to provide care during the first year following the birth of a child". My child got very sick w/ a cold and the flu. I took her to the dr and was not able to take her to daycare for 2 days. My employer is now telling me that this is not covered under FMLA. They say that it is for "bonding" during the first year. They said that if I want to take a week of when my child starts crawling that I can do that, but it does not cover me when she is sick. Is this correct?
     
  2. seniorjudge

    seniorjudge Super Moderator

    Messages:
    4,309
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    0

  3. cbg

    cbg Super Moderator

    Messages:
    5,933
    Likes Received:
    410
    Trophy Points:
    83

    It is partially correct.

    If your child had an illness that meets the definition of a "serious health condition" under the FMLA statute, that would be covered under FMLA. But illnesses such as colds are not protected.
     
  4. Arthur

    Arthur New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    FMLA,Eligibility,Employer 2 Day Responsibilty

    Hi,
    My Question:
    A person has worked at their company for more than 20 years,but does not have the 1250 hours worked for the past year.

    Can they get the maximum 12 weeks off from work if their employer took over a full business week, (over 8 Business Days) to inform them that they had not reached the required 1250 hours to qualify for Family Medical Leave.

    It was my belief that the employer has the responsibility of responding to a request for Family Medical Leave within 2 business days of the employees request.
     
  5. cbg

    cbg Super Moderator

    Messages:
    5,933
    Likes Received:
    410
    Trophy Points:
    83

    If they did not work the 1,250 hours in the past 12 months, then they are not eligible for FMLA regardless of how long the employer took to tell them.

    You need to research Ragsdale v. Wolverine, a 2002 US Supreme Court case in which the Supremes established that failure on the part of the employer to provide FMLA notice does not entitle the employee to additional time unless the lack of notice results in the employee receiving less time than he would otherwise be entitled to. In this case, the time that the employee would be entitled to is zero, due to not meeting all the eligibility requirements. Since he cannot receive less than zero, the lack of notice did not result in his receiving less time than he was entitled to.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page