You are on page 1of 2

FMLA Coverage IMPORTANT PLEASE READ!! - FederalSoup.

com

https://federalsoup.federaldaily.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=337&PID=3...

Home

Topics

FedStore

FedCentral

Federal Soup

Blogs

FEND

Almanac

Job Listings

Free Newsletter

Forum Home > RETIREMENT > Disability Retirement FAQ Search Events

New Posts Register Login

FMLA Coverage IMPORTANT PLEASE READ!!


Post Reply
Author Message
Topic: FMLA Coverage IMPORTANT PLEASE READ!! Posted: 17 Mar 2009 at 4:34pm Post Options Topic Search Thanks(0) Topic Options Quote Reply

trouble22
Newbie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 Points: 19

I have an approved FMLA condition for both of my parents and have CHOSEN to take LWOP for their illnesses. I have been informed by management that I have to use all of my sick leave and annual leave FIRST before I can use LWOP due to some "change in the rules" that the law has recently done. I have asked my union and the FMLA coordinator and BOTH have told me that the have never heard of this and I can use LWOP if I want. My question is- Can they MAKE me exhaust all of my leave before I take LWOP? I don't get it, WHY is it their business if I choose to use LWOP? I do know that if eight hours are requested, it has to be approved by the Postmaster but as a former 204B, we were to encourage LWOP whenever we could. Management is claiming that they can Make me take leave first and that I don't have a choice and have already done so by charging me Annual instead of what I requested on my 3971. Need an answer fast! Thanks!

carmicfg
Senior Member

Posted: 26 Mar 2009 at 7:15pm

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Reply

Listen to your FMLA Coordinator in fact, your supervisor should be working through your district FMLA coordinator.

Joined: 08 Jul 2008 Points: 260

postalwiz
Senior Member

Posted: 26 Mar 2009 at 8:34pm

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Reply

Joined: 28 Nov 2006 Points: 3275

If your fmla coordinator does not know about this rule why would you believe your PM? put your 3971 in and ask for lwop if that is what you want to take and make sure your PM or whomever does your timekeeping does not charge you any leave. Get a copy of your 3971 after approved (send a copy) to your fmla coordinator, be careful with using lwop thou, if you are not at the top of your step it can delay your next step if you take too much lwop.

MindInquiring
Advisor

Posted: 14 Oct 2009 at 2:26pm

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Reply

Employee Awarded Nearly 1/2 million Dollars Due to FMLA Violations Summary: Former United States Postal Service (USPS) employee with alcoholism and depression brought action against the USPS, alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Following bench trial, the District Court, McKinney, J., held that: (1) employee was not required to specifically ask for FMLA leave, in order for his sick leave to qualify as protected FMLA leave; (2) supervisor restrained and interfered with employee's exercise of FMLA-protected rights, and retaliated against him for such exercise, as required for employee's claim of retaliatory discharge; (3) supervisor's negative attitude towards employee was causally connected to supervisor's inability to objectively evaluate information he received about employee and to medical officer's decision that employee was not fit for duty; (4) ability to work seven days per week was an essential function of part-time flexible clerk position; (5) employee was able to perform essential function of position; and (6) USPS did not have the right to condition employee's return to work on a fitness for duty examination. Determining whether an employee's condition qualifies as a serious health condition within meaning of the FMLA is a legal question, and the employee must demonstrate the seriousness of his or her condition by a preponderance of the evidence. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Employer may not defend claim of interference with FMLA's substantive rights on grounds that it treats all employees that way without discriminating. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 105(a)(2), 29 U. S. C. A. 2615(a)(2). The FMLA contains two categories of broad protections for employees: (1) prescriptive protections that are expressed as substantive statutory rights, the violation of which need only be proven by showing that the employee was entitled to a specific right and the employer failed to provide it, and (2) protection from discrimination or other adverse employment action because they have exercised, or are attempting to exercise, any of the substantive rights, which is considered essentially proscriptive in nature. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 105(a, b), 29 U. S. C. A. 2615(a, b).

Joined: 21 May 2009 Points: 183

1 of 2

12/1/2013 11:04 AM

FMLA Coverage IMPORTANT PLEASE READ!! - FederalSoup.com

https://federalsoup.federaldaily.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=337&PID=3...

When the employee claims the employer has discriminated or retaliated against him or her for exercising rights granted by the FMLA, the question of intent or motivation is relevant to whether employer has violated proscriptive provisions of FMLA. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 105, 29 U. S. C. A. 2615. To prove a case of retaliatory discharge under the FMLA, an employee must show that: (1) employee availed himself of a protected right under the FMLA; (2) employee was adversely affected by an employment decision; and (3) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 105, 29 U. S. C. A. 2615. To prove a case of retaliatory discharge under the FMLA, an employee must show that: (1) employee availed himself of a protected right under the FMLA; (2) employee was adversely affected by an employment decision; and (3) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, ? 105, 29 U. S. C. A. 2615. Statements by a supervisor that reveal animus against the employee for exercising a protected right under the FMLA suffice to show discrimination under the FMLA. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 2 et seq., 29 U. S. C. A. 2601 et seq. CONCLUSION The Court has found that by ordering Routes to undergo an evaluation of his fitness for duty, the USPS violated his rights under the provisions of the FMLA. Routes has succeeded in proving by a preponderance of the evidence a violation of the FMLA under both of his legal theories. First he has shown that his supervisor, reacted negatively to his exercise of his right to take a medical leave in December of 1994 that qualified for protection under the FMLA. G...'s negative reaction then affected and influenced subsequent employment decisions he made that adversely affected Routes. Because those decisions led to Routes being subjected to an unjustified FFDE, and because G... provided information about Routes to those performing the FFDE that was exaggerated and inaccurate, Routes succeeded in proving that he was retaliated against for having exercised his FMLA rights. Second, Routes' claim that his substantive right to be restored to his former position, or an equivalent one, succeeds because Routes was released to return to work without being restricted in a way that prevented him from performing the essential functions of his job. Although Routes has proven a violation of the FMLA under two theories, he is only entitled to one recovery. The elements of damages to which he is entitled include any wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation denied or lost by reason of the violation; any actual monetary losses sustained as a direct result of the violation; interest on the amount awarded for lost wages and for monetary losses; and an additional amount as liquidated damages, unless the employer proves that the act that constituted a violation of the FMLA was in good faith and the employer had reasonable grounds for believing it was not a violation. 29 U. S. C. ? 2617. The Court may also order equitable relief if it is appropriate, including employment, reinstatement, and promotion. The proper scope and measure of the damages to which Routes may be entitled has not been briefed, and the parties are hereby ordered to submit briefing on these issues as follows: the plaintiff is to file a brief within thirty (30) days of the date of this order; the defendant will have thirty (30) days after that to file a response; and the plaintiff shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of the defendant's response to file a reply. Given the Court's finding that G... retaliated and discriminated against Routes for having taken a leave that would have qualified as FMLA leave in December of 1994, the issue of liquidated damages need not be briefed. The Court finds that Routes is entitled to liquidated damages as a matter of law under these circumstances. In addition, because Routes admitted at trial that he lied on an official USPS form, this Court will not provide any equitable relief in the form of reinstatement. All other issues relating to damages may be briefed by the parties. Given the uncertainty of the interrelationship between the FMLA and postal regulations and the FMLA and the ADA, the Court orders each side to bear its own costs. S. D. Ind.,1999. Judgment - The Court has rendered its decision and made its order in the above-captioned matter. It has found in favor of the Plaintiff, and against the Defendant, William Henderson, Postmaster of the USPS, in the amount of $313,244.28. The Court also awarded attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $104,783.83 and $2,550.21 respectively, making a total of $107,334.04 in fees and costs, in addition to the damages award. Final judgment is entered accordingly. Routes vs Henderson

Post Reply
Tweet Forum Jump
0
Forum Permissions

2 of 2

12/1/2013 11:04 AM