Federal Appeals Court Declares FMLA Notice Regs Invalid

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) did not require an employer to restore an employee, who overstayed her 12 weeks of FMLA-protected leave by an additional three weeks, to her former position, ruled the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. As the court explained, under the terms of the FMLA-and contrary to the Department of Labor’s (DOL) regulations-the employer could lawfully require the employee to substitute accrued paid leave for any portion of her FMLA leave benefit, with or without notice.

In this instance, the employee took 15 weeks off to give birth and to care for her newborn infant. Upon her return, the employer demoted her. Because the employer failed to notify her that employer-provided disability leave and unpaid FMLA leave would run concurrently-as she argued the applicable FMLA regulations required it to do-the employee claimed she was entitled to more than 12 weeks of leave. Instead, she alleged that since she had no notice, she was entitled to 13 weeks of the employer-provided disability leave plus an additional 12 weeks of FMLA leave, and was then entitled to be restored to her former position. Having actually taken less leave than that to which she was entitled, the employee asserted, her demotion violated the FMLA.

Ruling otherwise, the court declared the FMLA regulation upon which the employee had relied to be “invalid and unenforceable.”Requiring employers to notify their employees if paid leave and FMLA leave must be taken concurrently, when read in connection with another regulation that essentially prohibited employers from substituting paid disability for guaranteed FMLA childbirth leave, would effectively extend FMLA leave for the birth of a child beyond the statutory 12-week maximum whenever an employer failed to provide the required notice.

As the court observed, there was nothing in the text of the FMLA to suggest that DOL could, by regulation, inadvertently or otherwise, extend the statutory 12-week entitlement. That being the case, enforcing the pertinent regulations against the employer in this instance would require it to grant “entitlements” and impose “requirements” beyond those contemplated by the statute. Ruling in the employee’s favor, the court further concluded, would also run contrary to the FMLA’s stated purpose to “balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families … in a manner that accommodates the legitimate interests of employers.”

Cite: McGregor v Autozone, Inc, 11thCir, July 14 1999, 138 LC 33,915.

Source: CCH Incorporated is a leading provider of information and software for human resources, legal, accounting, health care and small business professionals. CCH offers human resource management, payroll, employment, benefits, and worker safety products and publications in print, CD, online and via the Internet. For more information and other updates on the latest HR news, check our Web site at http://hr.cch.com.