Disability, Leave & Health Management Blog : Attorneys & Lawyers for Employer Legal Protections in Businesses Nationwide

 A federal district court has upheld an employer’s restrictions on employee travel while on medical leave, affirming that employers can take reasonable steps to ensure that leave is used for its intended purpose. Pellegrino v. Communications Workers of America, Civ. No. 10-0098 (W.D. PA. May 18, 2011).

The Communications Workers of America provided its employees a wage replacement program which ran concurrently with FMLA leave. When receiving wage replacement, employees had to  remain in the “immediate vicinity of their homes” except to receive medical treatment or to attend “ordinary and necessary activities directly related to personal or family needs,” according to the court. An employee wanting to leave the immediate vicinity of her home needed the CWA’s written permission to travel.

Two weeks into her FMLA leave for surgery, plaintiff went to Cancun, Mexico for a week.   She had not sought permission to travel or request vacation for the trip. The CWA terminateded her for traveling to Cancun while on FMLA and disability leave in violation of CWA’s leave policies and work rules.

Plaintiff sued the CWA, claiming that it interfered with her right to FMLA by terminating her employment. After the lawsuit had begun, plaintiff’s physician submitted a letter stating that plaintiff was not able to return to work until weeks after she had returned from Cancun and that her trip to Cancun “was not inconsistent with her recovery or with any medical restrictions placed on her during that time,” according to the court.

The court upheld the wage replacement restrictions and granted the CWA summary judgment. Citing Third Circuit precedent, the court held that “there is no right in the FMLA to be left alone. Nothing in the FMLA prevents employers from ensuring that employees who are on leave from work do not abuse their leave…” 

This is the latest of a handful of cases upholding the right of employers to impose restrictions to make sure medical leave, including FMLA, is not abused. Employers seeking to actively manage FMLA to prevent abuse should consider the lessons from these cases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Wisconsin has become the first state to pass a law preempting local laws providing family and medical leave. Governor Scott Walker said the state needs to avoid a “patchwork” of different leave requirements in different parts of the state. Noting that “the provision of family and medical leave is a matter of statewide concern,” the law states that the enactment of any law providing such leave, whether paid or unpaid, by a city, village, town, or county would be “logically inconsistent with, would defeat the purpose of, and would go against the spirit of” that statewide concern. The statute voids Milwaukee’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance, which allowed full time employees to accrue up to nine paid sick days per year.

The Wisconsin Family and Medical Leave Act provides eligible employees up to six weeks of leave on the birth or adoption of a child, two weeks to care for a parent, child or spouse with a serious health condition and two weeks for the employee’s serious health condition. While the leave is unpaid, an employee may elect to substitute any accrued paid leave.

Only San Francisco and Washington, D.C. require employers to provide paid sick days, although Denver, Seattle and Philadelphia are considering similar bills. A Connecticut bill requiring paid sick leave has passed the legislative Appropriations Committee and is awaiting action in the Senate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An Ohio manufacturer has paid $120,000 to settle sex and disability claims with allegations of unlawful discrimination relating to an individual’s caregiver responsibilities. According to the EEOC's press release, the EEOC had alleged in its 2010 lawsuit that The Timken Company had denied a part time employee a full time position because she was the mother of a disabled child and that one or more managers believed that the woman would be unable to work full time and care for her child.

The EEOC had alleged that the company had hired men with disabled children as full time employees and had discriminated against the part time employee due to her association with her disabled child.

In 2007, the EEOC had issued enforcement guidance on the “Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities.” The EEOC stated then that the guidance was “not intended to create a new protected category but rather to illustrate circumstances in which stereotyping or other forms of disparate treatment may violate Title VII or the prohibition under the ADA against discrimination based on a worker’s association with an individual with a disability.” The allegations underlying the EEOC’s allegations against The Timken Company seem to track its guidance fairly closely.

The two year consent decree also required the company to provide anti-discrimination training to its managers, supervisors and employees at the facility where the incident occurred, post a notice and provide periodic reports to the EEOC on its hiring practices.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link