The video to be used as a reference concerning the FMLA Act is that of Tony who requests that his employer Herman advances him a three-week leave; so that he could take care of his biological father. From the background information in support of the video; it is clear that Tony has been a promising employee as a sales representative at Herman’s business. This can be deduced from the compliment made by Herman regarding the sale of eleven cars in two previous days. Additionally, it should be noted that Herman feels that Tony’s father does not deserve the sacrificing of Tony’s productive services.
This was mainly the consideration, as during the talk which turned into a confrontation; Tony had informed the employer that the father had abandoned his mother when he was only two years old. The other condition that counts towards the development of the argument was the fact that the parent in question was leaving a nursing home to go to Tony’s house; which would cost him three weeks off his job.
The lengthiness of the period Tony requests for also counted towards the development of the confrontation, as he demanded that the employer offers him a three-week leave. This paper is a discussion of the factors determining the eligibility of Tony’s demands regarding taking a leave to take care of the father. This is done about the past responsibilities of the father, the size of the business, the risk of losing the job and the eligibility of employees in general (Prentice & Bredeson, 2010, p. 31).
The fact that Tony’s father falls within the bracket of the ‘immediate family’ supports Tony’s eligibility for the FLMA leave. However, the consideration that Tony’s father was not directly responsible for the upbringing of Tony does not compromise the worthiness of Tony’s request. This is the case as the medical condition of the father falls within the conditions given consideration under the giving of an FLMA leave. Additionally, the consideration that Tony devoted and decides to take care of the father voluntarily dispels the father’s negligence towards participating in his upbringing, as the major decision to take care of him lies with Tony.
The eligibility of an employee who seeks to take care of an adopted child can also be used to support that the fathers conditions makes him eligible for the leave. This is the case, based on the consideration that a parent assumes the sole choice towards adopting a foster child; as much as Tony chooses to take care of the father who remained distant during his childhood. Based on the provisions of this act, a parent can be the biological one or the person who acted in the capacity of a parent when the employee was a child (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009, p.54).
One of the factors given consideration during ascertaining the eligibility of an individual for such benefits includes the size of the business. This is the case, based on the essence that for an employee to be awarded such benefits; he or she has to be part of a team consisting of at least 50 employees within 75 miles of the workplace. The consideration of the time duration through which an employee should have served the business, also indirectly implies that the consideration of the size of the business is vital.
This is the case, as the size of the business may be a product of the time period during which the business has been operating. Based on such considerations, it is only logical to consider any business that has been in operation for more than 12 months as being of a considerable size; therefore capable of offering such benefits. With regard to the case in question, the business possesses more than 50 employees within the working area; a condition used in qualifying a business as one capable of offering FLMA leave benefits (Lenhoff & Claudia, 1994, p. 39).
Herman can lawfully imply that Tony risks losing his job in the case he goes on to take the three weeks leave, as any eligible employee must provide a 30 day advance notice for predictable situations. This is the case, as the plan that the father moves to live with Tony is predictable and more of a deliberate arrangement. After the notice is given, the employer may demand for medical documents certifying the need for such benefits. However, in the current case, Tony does not provide such testifying documents as well as give the employer the opportunity for him to demand for the same. Herman can also imply that he may fire Tony, considering that he did not allow the employer to delay the leave for 30 days due to the lack of an advance notice; as the case should be (Prentice & Bredeson, 2010, p. 31).
Qn. 4. Describe who is covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993.
The parties covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act includes the employee who is eligible to such benefits. The eligibility of an employee is based on their having worked for the employer for more than 12 months, as well as being part of a team of more than 50 employees working within the workplace. The other parties covered under this Act include the immediate family members of the employee like their children, adopted children, a spouse or their parents. However, this act does not cover in-laws or close relatives like cousins (Lenhoff & Claudia, 1994, p. 39).
An employer can determine the eligibility of his employees based on the number of employees he has commissioned; where in the case he has less than fifty he can declare the employee ineligible. An employer can also determine the eligibility of an employee based on the duration they have served him; where an employee is ineligible in the case he has served for less than twelve months. The employer can also determine the eligibility of an employee by informing them of their ineligibility within a period of two business days; failure to which the employee legally becomes eligible.
An employer can also determine the eligibility of an employee; in the case the spouse working under the same business has enjoyed the benefits. The employer may also determine the eligibility of an employee through demanding that the employee provides official documents in support of the need, or delays the leave for foreseeable events (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009, p.54).
Reference list
Halbert, T. & Ingulli, E. (2009). Law & ethics in the business environment: 2010 custom edition, (6th Ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Lenhoff, D. & Claudia, W. (1994). Implementation of the Family and Medical Leave Act: Toward the Family-Friendly Workplace. American University Journal of Gender and Law 3, 39.
Prentice, R. & Bredeson, D. (2010). Student guide to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, (2nd Ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.