FMLA: employer notice and the deemed eligible employee

A couple of recent decisions from the federal trial courts in the Middle and Eastern Districts of Pennsylvania show a gathering consensus that a controversial Family And Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) regulation is not proper. The gathering is not complete, however, and employers need to continue appropriate practices while we watch the consensus evolve.

The question is whether an employee is “eligible” under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654?   The statute at 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2)(A)(ii), defines an eligible employee as one employed by employer for at least 12 months and who worked at least 1,250 hours in the 12 months before requesting leave. 

Detailed facts of the cases in review need not detain us: the common scenario is of an employee

meeting the first requirement (12 months employment) but not the second requirement (1,250 hours). In each case, the employee argued the regulation, 29 CFR § 825.110(d), required the employer to notify employee of the employee’s eligibility status and that failure to do so entitled the employee to FMLA rights. This is indeed what the regulation says, giving the employee an apparent unquestioned victory.

But in a clash of appearance against legal substance, the later prevailed. The recent trial court decisions, Erdman v. Nationwide Ins. Co., Civ. A. 1:05-0944, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2007 WL 1704648  (June 12, 2007) (not available on the public domain court website), and Boyd v. City of Philadelphia, Civ. A. 06-1524, 2007 WL 925908 (E.D. Pa. March 22, 2007) (praise to the Eastern District website), reveal why. Although the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has not addressed the regulation, three other Circuit Courts have. All have found that the Department of Labor exceeded its authority in creating this regulatory mandate. In particular, the “deemed eligible” regulatory right exceeds the plain statutory requirements. The regulation cannot make ineligible employees into eligible employees all in contravention of the FMLA’s clear terms.

Currently, however, the regulation is still in place. Employers will need to continue to follow ebst practices particularly in places where the impact of the regulation is unaffected by appeal court precedent.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://educationlaw.foxrothschild.com/admin/trackback/49226
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.