FMLA - Company size
Amy
2 Posts
Is is true that a company of less than 50 employees does not need to offer FMLA, however if a company of that size posts FMLA than it can be held liable to offer it. Is this thinking correct?
Comments
*No FMLA violation because exempt employer adopted leave policy*
An exempt employer that voluntarily adopted the terms of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) cannot be held in violation of the statute, the Sixth Circuit has ruled.
*Facts*
A pregnant woman was employed in a medical equipment company's Holland, Ohio, office as an image processing coordinator in December 1994 when she was granted unpaid maternity leave. In January of that year, the company had amended its employee handbook to reflect the terms of the FMLA. The policy stated that employees who had worked for the company for at least 12 months and at least 1,250 hours during the previous 12 months would be entitled to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid family and medical leave.
When the employee returned from her leave, she was notified that her former position had been abolished in a corporate reorganization. She was offered her choice of three positions -- as a sales secretary, receptionist, or customer service representative.
The employee filed suit, claiming that she was not offered an equivalent position in violation of the FMLA. Her contention was upheld by the federal district court, which ruled that although the company did not technically come under the ambit of the statute, it had modified its at-will employment relationship with the employee by adopting the terms and obligations of the FMLA. The court held that the company was required to reinstate the employee to an equivalent position after she completed maternity leave and that the company had complied by offering her a position as a secretary.
The company appealed the decision with regard to its obligations under the FMLA.
*Court's decision*
The Sixth Circuit said the district court did not have the authority to expand the scope of the law to a company that was exempt from the FMLA because it employed fewer than 50 employees within 75 miles of the work site.
The court observed that Congress specifically had defined the coverage of the Act to exclude coverage for "any employee of an employer who is employed at a worksite at which such employer employs less than 50 employees if the total number of employees employed by that employer within 75 miles of that worksite is less than 50." In this case, the company was exempt because at the time of the employee's complaint, it employed only 29 employees within 75 miles of the Holland office where the employee worked. The court said it was dismissing the case because the company did not meet the definition of "employer" under the Act.
In dismissing the case, the court further noted that the fact that the parties contracted to incorporate the terms and responsibilities of the FMLA into their employment relationship does not subject them to the limitations and jurisdiction of the Act itself. Douglas v. E.G. Baldwin, 6th Cir., No. 97-3588 (8/4/98).
*Bottom line*
(*) Courts do not have the authority to expand the scope of the law to a company that is exempt from the FMLA.
(*) A company policy that incorporates the terms and responsibilities of the FMLA does not subject the exempt employer to the limitations and jurisdiction of the FMLA.
Copyright 1998 Vercruysse, Metz & Murray
Any time you put out a policy, then discipline employees for following it, you are going to run into trouble. Although you may not be legally bound, the morale of the employees may suffer if they feel they are not being treated well.
Good Luck!
Thank you!