FMLA Expands for Military Family Members
Exigency leaves and caregiver leave provisions extended.
May 31, 2010 at 08:00 PM
2 minute read
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2010 expands by tens of thousands the number of employees who can ask their private-sector employers for FMLA exigency leave and military caregiver leave. In force since Oct. 28, 2009, these changes are still not widely known among Armed Forces members and their families, says Constangy Brooks & Smith Partner Heather Owen, who practices in the military town of Jacksonville, Fla.
“That's a lot of people who don't realize they are covered because it hasn't gotten a lot of press,” notes Owen, who foresees an up-tick in new FMLA leave requests once the latest changes become known.
Qualifying exigency leave, once restricted to families of National Guard members, was expanded to cover families of regular military members deployed on active duty to a foreign country.
An employee can qualify for exigency FMLA leave:
- When the service member has received a week or less in notice of deployment;
- For military events and related activities;
- For urgent (as opposed to recurring and routine) child-care and school activities;
- For financial and legal tasks to deal with a family member's active duty;
- For counseling for the employee or child who isn't already covered by FMLA;
- To spend time with the covered service member on rest and recuperation breaks during deployment;
- For post-deployment activities;
- For other purposes arising out of the call to duty, as agreed upon by the employee and employer.
Under the FMLA's military caregiver leave provisions, an eligible employee may take up to 26 workweeks of leave during a single 12-month period to care for a family member who is a covered service member. Effective October 27, 2009, employees may also take military caregiver leave to care for family members who sustained a qualifying injury for up to five years after they have been discharged from military service. Military caregiver leave was also expanded to cover care given by family members to those who experience aggravation of existing, or pre-existing, injuries incurred in the line of duty.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFired by Trump, EEOC's First Blind GC Lands at Nonprofit Targeting Abuses of Power
3 minute readTrump's Inspectors General Purge Could Make Policy Changes Easier, Observers Say
Keys to Maximizing Efficiency (and Vibes) When Navigating International Trade Compliance Crosschecks
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Big Law Partner Co-Launches Startup Aiming to Transform Fund Formation Process
- 2How the Court of Public Opinion Should Factor Into Litigation Strategy
- 3Debevoise Lures Another SDNY Alum, Adding Criminal Division Chief
- 4Cooley Promotes NY Office Leader to Global Litigation Department Chair
- 5What Happens When Lateral Partners’ Guaranteed Compensation Ends?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250