The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) requires employers to provide employees with unpaid, but a job-protected leave for medical and family reasons. The federal law was implemented to achieve a balance of the needs of the family and the needs of the workplace. The bill was signed into law in 1993 and considered one of the major agendas of Bill Clinton’s Presidency. Magill (279) reveals that as of 2007, there were 94.4 million people in the US who were working at FMLA-covered workstations. Out of these, 74.1 million qualified for the leave.
In summary, the Act stipulates that there are several family and health problems that may affect the productivity level of the employee, thereby making it prudent to allow the employee to sort out the problem and get back to work. Magill (282) argues that in an attempt to lure business people into accepting the bill, a clause in the law explains that such off days should not be paid. Moreover, the employee who qualifies for the off days can get up to a maximum of twelve weeks off work. The employee can apply for the leave as need arises, which may be urgent at times. The law has created problems for many employers.
It suffices to mention that the Act gives specific guidelines on how to register under FMLA. The first requirement is that the workstation has to have a minimum of 50 employees. The person applying for FMLA must also live within a 75-mile radius of the workstation. However, for individuals who work in public institutions and education centers, the 50 employees’ threshold is not considered. Additionally, the individual should have worked with the same employer for at least 12 months and a minimum of 1,250 hours in the same period.
There are specific family and health reasons that are considered under FMALA; for instance, caring for a new child, caring for a seriously ill family member, recovering from illness, and caring for a critically ill service member (Magill 279). Regarding the compliance requirements for the employers, the Act stipulates that the company provides similar-group health insurance benefits when an employee is on leave. Moreover, the employer is required to restore the employee back to the same position they were before they took the leave.
The Act has given more concrete guidelines that are meant to protect the employee. For instance, it protects the employee from being fired due to taking such leave. It also protects the employee from receiving any form of retaliation from the employer once they are back in their workstation.
There are several angles the employee can pursue in case they receive backlash or retaliation from the employer. The first thing the employee can do is to sue the boss for violating their rights. Given that it is a federal law, the employee can sue the employer from any state they are in or they prefer.
It suffices to mention that the Act has one impact on the compensation system; as noted, the employee does not receive any salary for the period that he or she is away (Magill 283). Consequently, tensions arise in the workplace, especially if the employer had to hire someone else to take the job of the person on leave. Similarly, there are employees who demand to be paid due to misunderstanding of the Act.
There have been cases where employees have taken legal action against their employers for a breach of the law. For example, there was the case of Mandi Marie Alexander, a project manager at the Carolina Fire Control, who sued her employers for misleading her when registering for FMLA. Mandi explained to the court that she had approached her employers and informed them that she needed time off work to take care of her son, who had been diagnosed with cancer (“Employer Sued for Interfering” par. 1). She was given the papers needed and requested to fill them, but she was summoned and discouraged from filling them.
This is not the only case that has been filed under FMLA. In a different situation, six employees of PSEG sued their employer for failing to award them leave after the birth of their children. In the Act, it is clear that employees have the right to ask and get leave to care for a new child, regardless of whether the child has been adopted or born to the employee (Woods par. 1).
The employers can take time and go through the Act together with the employees to ensure that the employees comply with the specifics of the Act. Magill (281) argues that there are employees who have no idea what the FMLA requires, which makes it easier for them to be confused about what they should do or what they should not do under FMLA. Moreover, the employers can introduce the FMLA and its requirements during the hiring process so that employees can understand the law before starting to work with the company.
Works Cited
“Employer Sued for Interfering with Employee’s FMLA Rights”. Schwartz & Perry LLP, 2014. Web.
Magill, Nicole L. “Balancing Career and Parenthood: The Family Medical Leave Act and Maternity Leave.” Widener Law Review 20.2 (2014): 279-283. Print.
Woods, E. Don. “PSEG Employees File Complaint over Family Leave, Lawsuit States.” South Jersey Times, 2015. Web.