FMLA Full Time to Part Time

I attended the FMLA Workshop and it was great! I now have a question regarding FMLA leave and I believe I know the answer, but I would like to run it by you. We have an employee who worked 1,464.0 hours in 2005 (was paid for 1,666.5 hours, but 202.5 hours of that was paid annual and sick leave not actual worked hours), we go by the calendar year for determining FMLA leave, during 2005, her employment status changed and she went from a regular full-time (paid benefits) employee from Jan 1, 2005 until Sept. 22, 2005, then on Sept. 23, 2005 she was hired as a temporary part-time employee until May 15, 2006, when she was transferred back to a regular full-time employee. She is requesting 12 weeks FMLA leave for pregnancy.

From what I learned at the workshop, because she worked at least 1,250 hours during 2005, regardless of the fact that she was full or part time she would be entitled to that leave, correct? But, my hesitation is, she actually resigned effective 9/22/05 so that she could be paid her accrued benefits (annual leave and pension), and then rehired as the temporary part time the next day so there was no a lapse in service, would that matter?

Comments

  • 4 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • Welcome to the forum! Honestly, I have no idea how the temporary status affects her FMLA eligibility. Hopefully you will get some good advice from others with more experience (I've only been dealing with FMLA for about 1.5 years, at my current job, and we didn't have FMLA before me). What I would do is just to call the DOL Wage and Hour division directly at 1-866-4US-WAGE and ask them.

    You may also want to e-mail the moderator and request this thread be moved under the FMLA board. You'll get better traffic there.

    Good luck, and please let us know if you get an answer elsewhere.
  • I don't think it would matter even if there were a more significant lapse in service.

    Remember there are two requirements -- that the employee has worked for you a total of 12 months (ever), and that in the last 12 months, the employee has worked 1250 hours. The 12 months for the first requirement don't have to be consecutive. And obviously, 1250 hours is way less than full-time.

    Here's the language from the regulation (29 CFR 825.110):

    (b) The 12 months an employee must have been employed by the employer need not be consecutive months. If an employee is maintained on the payroll for any part of a week, including any periods of paid or unpaid leave (sick, vacation) during which other benefits or compensation are provided by the employer (e.g., workers' ompensation, group health plan benefits, etc.), the week counts as a week of employment. For purposes of determining whether intermittent/occasional/casual employment qualifies as ``at least 12 months,'' 52 weeks is
    deemed to be equal to 12 months.

    Notice that intermittent or occasional employment is covered if it amounts to the right number of hours and if the employee has been paid during a total of 52 weeks over whatever period of time.


    Brad Forrister
    VP/Content
    M. Lee Smith Publishers


  • By the way, I also moved this to the FMLA area rather than "How to Use the Forum."

    Brad Forrister
    VP/Content
    M. Lee Smith Publishers


  • Thanks for jumping in, Brad. I know that dol.gov was revamped to make it EASIER to search, but I can never seem to find what I'm looking for on there.
Sign In or Register to comment.