FMLA eligibility

cctsphr

I thought I had researched this once and found the answer, but can not locate now. Situation: Company has 6 months of medical leave for those who have passed 120 introductory period. Ee hired on 2/13/02 and goes out on medical leave on 1/26/03 returns on 5/3/03. Prior to the ee going out on the leave she had worked 1250 hours. Ee states we should have converted the medical leave to FMLA when she reached her 12 months on 2/13/03. Any suggestions for referencing research would be appreciated.

LindaS

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-28-03 AT 03:52PM (CST)[/font][p]I believe this is something that was discussed previously pertaining to maternity leave. You should have started the FMLA clock "ticking" when the ee reached her 1 year anniversary date. If you haven't done that, you probably should start.

Sorry - after reading your post I see that the ee has already returned to work. It is also up to the employER to determine when the FMLA clock starts running but I'm curious as to why the ee is so adamant.

juju

This is my first post but I have been lurking for quite a while and have to say these forums provide great information AND are so enjoyable to read!

Wouldn't the employee's FMLA eligibility depend on whether she had worked enough hours (1250) prior to going out on the medical LOA? I would assume meeting the one year requirement during the med LOA wouldn't be an issue. I'm just thinking maybe it wouldn't be an automatic change to FMLA unless both criteria were met. Am I off base?

LindaS

The federal FMLA regs require BOTH that an employee work 1250 hours and have worked 12 months so even though the ee had the hours requirement in before they went out on leave, they still did not qualify for FMLA until they reached the 12 month anniversary. At that point there should have been FMLA paperwork sent to the employee, or the employer could have used the paperwork supplied for the medical leave, and notified the employee that their FMLA clock was ticking.

juju

Oops, sorry - I missed the part in the original post about the employee already working the 1250 hours. Thanks for the clarification!