Employers Should Take Required FMLA Notices Seriously – But All Hope is Not Lost if Mistakes are Made

By
May 14, 2014

When an employee requests a leave of absence that may be for an FMLA-qualifying reason, his or her employer is required to provide notice to the employee of eligibility for leave under the FMLA (as most employers are aware, the Department of Labor has created a handy-dandy form to accomplish this purpose WH 381).

The purpose of the eligibility notice is straightforward to inform the employee about whether he or she meets the requirements to be eligible for leave under the FMLA (e.g., worked the required number of hours). At the same time, an employer is also required to provide an employee with notice of his or her rights and responsibilities, if ultimately qualifying for FMLA leave (this notice is conveniently combined with the notice of eligibility within form WH-381). Typically, employers also include a request for medical certification that the employee s request for leave is for an FMLA-qualifying reason. This notice must be provided to employees within five business days. Finally, if the employer determines that the leave request is FMLA qualifying, it must provide an employee with a notice designating leave as FMLA qualifying (again within five business days). Occasionally, an employer may require an employee to submit to a fitness-for-duty exam at the conclusion of the FMLA leave and this must be noted in the designation notice (form WH-382). An employer who fails to meet these notice obligations risks an inference with FMLA rights lawsuit and significant financial exposure.

However, a recent case is a good reminder that technical notice violations do not always spell disaster for employers because employees must show that technical violations prejudice them. In Bellone v. Southwick-Tolland Regional School District, the court determined that although the employer failed to provide the required eligibility notice, and also failed to timely provide the correct designation notice (it provided the notice designating the leave as FMLA qualifying about one month after the employee exhausted his 12 weeks of FMLA leave), the employee could not prove that he was harmed in any way by the deficient and untimely notices. In Southwick-Tolland Regional School District, the employee could not show harm because he failed to offer any evidence that he could have returned to work during his leave, or that he would have structured his leave any differently had he received proper and timely notice.

This case is a good reminder to employers that strictly observing the FMLA notice requirements is not just a bunch of Bellone.

author avatar
Ruder Ware Alumni

Back to all News & Insights

Disclaimer

The content in the following blog posts is based upon the state of the law at the time of its original publication. As legal developments change quickly, the content in these blog posts may not remain accurate as laws change over time. None of the information contained in these publications is intended as legal advice or opinion relative to specific matters, facts, situations, or issues. You should not act upon the information in these blog posts without discussing your specific situation with legal counsel.

© 2024 Ruder Ware, L.L.S.C. Accurate reproduction with acknowledgment granted. All rights reserved.