The complexities of the Family and Medical Leave Act can bollocks even multi-billion-dollar companies. But the case I'm going to tell you about today is a reminder that, at bottom, the FMLA is largely no-harm, non-foul.
In early 2018, an employee with a serious health condition spoke to her doctor, who encouraged her to take FMLA leave on a reduced schedule. So, the employee applied for FMLA through her employer's third-party administrator to work no more than 40 hours per week (8 hours per day).
Two days later, the TPA approved the FMLA request and communicated this to the company. However, the company responded, "We do not make accommodations for reduced schedules. Please advise."
After some back and forth, the TPA clarified that the FMLA covered the leave, and the company resolved the issue. However, in the interim, the employee worked two ten-hour days — four hours that should have been FMLA leave.
So, the employee claimed FMLA interference.
And the court agreed. Even though the company argued that the mistake was minor, the court concluded that "even a slight delay can be an FMLA violation if there is prejudice to the employee."
Oh, but wait a minute. Was there any prejudice to the employee?
Even where a plaintiff shows a technical FMLA violation, a claim for interference will fail unless the employee also shows that the employer's interference prejudiced the employee as the result of an actual, remediable impairment of her rights under the FMLA.
In plain English, she...
FIRST ON FOX: A Mexican national who voted illegally in U.S. elections and falsely claimed to be a citizen has been convicted and could face removal under federal immigration law. The Department o...