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This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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 All2024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
Financial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Top Five Florida Verdicts of 2024
- 2The Evolution of a Virtual Court System
- 3New Acquitted Conduct Guideline: An Analysis
- 4Considering the Implications of the 2024 Presidential Election for Jurors in White Collar Cases
- 52024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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