FMLA undesignation

Last post 02-19-2013, 3:43 PM by HRforME. 2 replies.
Sort Posts:
  •  02-18-2013, 6:28 PM 11071

    LaLa4967 is not online. Last active: 02-19-2013, 5:39 AM LaLa4967

    Not Ranked

    Joined on 02-19-2013

    Posts 1

  • FMLA undesignation

    An employee is out on leave as a result of a work related injury.  The WC leave is handled by the Corporate office.  The facility HR Manager designated the leave as FMLA before confirming the employee's eligibility for FMLA.  The employee did not meet the 1250 hours requirement.  Can we undesignate the leave?  Or does the time WC paid the employee count towards the employees 1250 hours to make them eligible?

  •  02-19-2013, 10:00 AM 11072 in reply to 11071

    HR36 is not online. Last active: 02-19-2013, 10:00 AM HR36

    Top 50 Contributor

    Joined on 03-27-2007

    Posts 58

  • Re: FMLA undesignation

    According to BLR's website:

    Some courts have held that employees are entitled to FMLA protections based on representations made by the employer, even if the employer’s representation is based on a mistaken designation. See Murphy v. FedEx National LTL, Inc., 618 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2010); Daniel Dobrowski v. Jay Dee Contractors, Inc. (6th Cir. 2009).

    Based on the legal principle of “equitable estoppel,” these courts in these cases require that even if there is no specific legal requirement of FMLA eligibility, the employer’s promise of FMLA eligibility must be kept based on principles of fairness. In effect, the courts have held the employer to its promises of providing FMLA-type protection, even if the employee is not eligible under the law.

    In the Dobrowski case, the 6th Circuit recognized that Dobrowski wasn’t eligible for FMLA leave because the company didn’t employ the necessary number of employees at his work site. Thus, the question before the court was whether he should be treated as entitled to the FMLA’s protections based on Jay Dee’s previous acknowledgment of his eligibility.

    The court looked to cases from other circuits that had relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc. In that case, the Supreme Court clarified that to prevail on a claim of equitable estoppel, there must be:

    • Definite misrepresentation of a significant fact;

    • Reasonable reliance on the misrepresentation; and

    • Resulting detriment to the party reasonably relying on the misrepresentation.

    More specifically, the Supreme Court found that “the party claiming the estoppel must have relied on its adversary’s conduct in such a manner as to change his position for the worse, and that reliance must have been reasonable in that the party claiming the estoppel did not know nor should it have known that its adversary’s conduct was misleading.” The 6th Circuit clarified that Dobrowski “need not show that his employer either was aware of the true facts or intended for the statement to be relied upon.”

    The Court noted that Jay Dee’s actions qualified as a misrepresentation of Dobrowski’s eligibility. However, it further found that Dobrowski had failed to show that he detrimentally relied on the misrepresentation. Although he had complied with the requirements of the FMLA, there was no evidence that he changed his behavior based on the company’s misinformation.

    Bottom line. It is imperative for employers to carefully consider FMLA eligibility rules. First, whether the employer is subject to the FMLA, and second, whether the employee is eligible under the threshold requirements (worksite with 50 employees, 12 months of service and 1,250 work hours in the previous 12 months) and whether the employee’s need for leave falls under one of the FMLA’s specific eligible circumstances.

    If the employer mistakenly designates an employee’s leave as FMLA eligible, it may be held to that designation.

  •  02-19-2013, 3:43 PM 11073 in reply to 11072

    HRforME is not online. Last active: 05-21-2013, 12:08 PM HRforME

    Top 10 Contributor

    Joined on 10-18-2007

    Posts 505

  • Re: FMLA undesignation

    Agree with HR36 about the courts moving towards giving the employee the benefit of a FMLA eligibilty employer mistake. Also your state's workers comp laws can also come into play with employee protections in termination/light duty/return to work time frames. 
View as RSS news feed in XML
Use of this site constitutes your agreement to the terms and condition specified in the Forum Agreement