Labor: How to make the FMLA, ADA and workers’ compensation laws work for you
Often a request for continued and prolonged leave can pose a serious concern, especially when dealing with an employee with a troubled work history.
June 03, 2013 at 07:27 AM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Often a request for continued and prolonged leave can pose a serious concern, especially when dealing with an employee with a troubled work history. Frequently, employers believe they are within their rights to terminate an employee who has used all of her statutory or company-provided leave time. However, decision making in this area is complicated by the intersection of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state workers' compensation laws, in addition to recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement activity.
Under the FMLA, problem situations frequently arise not when an employee requests leave, but when an employee attempts to return from leave with the same restrictions. When a covered employee returns from FMLA leave, the employer must restore the employee to the same position he previously held or to an equivalent position with the restoration of pre-leave benefits. Importantly, however, upon the expiration of FMLA leave, if the employee is unable to perform an essential function of his position because of a physical or mental condition, he employee has no right to be restored to his former position or to any other position under the FMLA.
Often an employer is anxious to move forward with termination of an employee who has exhausted her FMLA leave but is unable or unwilling to return to work. While such terminations may seem uncomplicated, employers with employees on FMLA leave may have additional obligations under the ADA and workers' compensation laws. See 29 CFR § 825.216(c). Most circuits and the EEOC have concluded that ADA “reasonable accommodations” include unpaid medical leave for a finite period, even if such leave is an extension of existing FMLA or company-provided leave time. Additionally, a variety of state workers' compensation laws may also come into play. Employers terminating employees coming off of FMLA leave may also face statutory FMLA retaliation and interference claims.
To minimize the risk of litigation, a written and consistently enforced leave policy is a necessity for employers. Additionally, upon granting leave under the FMLA and/or a company leave policy, the organization should provide the employee with a letter outlining the duration of the provided leave time and the company's policy for returning to work. This will serve to inform the employee of the company's expectations and minimize the risk of retaliation and interference claims. As the end of the employee's entitled leave approaches, the company should send a follow-up warning letter informing the employee that her entitled leave is set to expire and the date she is expected to report to work in order to maintain her position. Both letters should, of course, also address any specific workers' compensation laws issues.
Importantly, if the employee is suffering from a disability that may be covered under the ADA, it is advisable to ask him to respond with any update on restrictions and any suggested reasonable accommodations. Recent EEOC activity demonstrates the peril of inflexible or automatic termination procedures that fail to consider ADA accommodation. In 2011, Verizon settled a $20 million EEOC disability suit regarding their no-fault attendance policy. Under the policy, employees could be disciplined or terminated for a accumulating a certain number of “chargeable absences.” Verizon made no exception to this policy for employees who were absent due to a disability, which the EEOC contended was a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.
Furthermore, in 2009, Sears settled a $6.2 million class action suit that alleged it maintained an inflexible workers' compensation exhaustion leave policy and terminated employees instead of providing them with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities . After reaching the settlement, the counsel for the EEOC stated “The era of employers being able to inflexibly and universally apply a leave limits policy without seriously considering the reasonable accommodation requirements of the ADA are over.” With continued EEOC interest in this area, caution and flexibility, combined with written communication with employees on leave, are simple steps as part of an individualized process that can go a long way to reduce the risk of litigation.
Often a request for continued and prolonged leave can pose a serious concern, especially when dealing with an employee with a troubled work history. Frequently, employers believe they are within their rights to terminate an employee who has used all of her statutory or company-provided leave time. However, decision making in this area is complicated by the intersection of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state workers' compensation laws, in addition to recent
Under the FMLA, problem situations frequently arise not when an employee requests leave, but when an employee attempts to return from leave with the same restrictions. When a covered employee returns from FMLA leave, the employer must restore the employee to the same position he previously held or to an equivalent position with the restoration of pre-leave benefits. Importantly, however, upon the expiration of FMLA leave, if the employee is unable to perform an essential function of his position because of a physical or mental condition, he employee has no right to be restored to his former position or to any other position under the FMLA.
Often an employer is anxious to move forward with termination of an employee who has exhausted her FMLA leave but is unable or unwilling to return to work. While such terminations may seem uncomplicated, employers with employees on FMLA leave may have additional obligations under the ADA and workers' compensation laws. See 29 CFR § 825.216(c). Most circuits and the EEOC have concluded that ADA “reasonable accommodations” include unpaid medical leave for a finite period, even if such leave is an extension of existing FMLA or company-provided leave time. Additionally, a variety of state workers' compensation laws may also come into play. Employers terminating employees coming off of FMLA leave may also face statutory FMLA retaliation and interference claims.
To minimize the risk of litigation, a written and consistently enforced leave policy is a necessity for employers. Additionally, upon granting leave under the FMLA and/or a company leave policy, the organization should provide the employee with a letter outlining the duration of the provided leave time and the company's policy for returning to work. This will serve to inform the employee of the company's expectations and minimize the risk of retaliation and interference claims. As the end of the employee's entitled leave approaches, the company should send a follow-up warning letter informing the employee that her entitled leave is set to expire and the date she is expected to report to work in order to maintain her position. Both letters should, of course, also address any specific workers' compensation laws issues.
Importantly, if the employee is suffering from a disability that may be covered under the ADA, it is advisable to ask him to respond with any update on restrictions and any suggested reasonable accommodations. Recent EEOC activity demonstrates the peril of inflexible or automatic termination procedures that fail to consider ADA accommodation. In 2011, Verizon settled a $20 million EEOC disability suit regarding their no-fault attendance policy. Under the policy, employees could be disciplined or terminated for a accumulating a certain number of “chargeable absences.” Verizon made no exception to this policy for employees who were absent due to a disability, which the EEOC contended was a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.
Furthermore, in 2009, Sears settled a $6.2 million class action suit that alleged it maintained an inflexible workers' compensation exhaustion leave policy and terminated employees instead of providing them with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities . After reaching the settlement, the counsel for the EEOC stated “The era of employers being able to inflexibly and universally apply a leave limits policy without seriously considering the reasonable accommodation requirements of the ADA are over.” With continued EEOC interest in this area, caution and flexibility, combined with written communication with employees on leave, are simple steps as part of an individualized process that can go a long way to reduce the risk of litigation.
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 AllExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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