Skip to main content

Is An Employee Required to Work During FMLA Leave?


I came across a recent Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") case out of my hometown, Houston, a few days ago.  The case, Smith v. Genon Energy, highlighted a serious FMLA issue that I want to tie into a bigger article:  Is an employee required to work during FMLA leave?

By way of background, 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) provides that it is "unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided."  Note that "interfering with" includes "not only refusing to authorize FMLA leave, but discouraging an employee from using such leave." 

Now the court in which Smith v. Genon Energy was pending, the District Court for the Southern District of Texas, established that the Fifth Circuit had not previously considered whether requiring an employee to perform work while on FMLA leave amounted to interference.  As a result, it  became important to look at how courts in other circuits have interpreted the issue. 

Employers can breathe easy knowing that it is generally held that reasonable contact limited to inquires about the location of files or passing along institutional or status knowledge will not interfere with an employee's FMLA rights.  Perhaps most importantly, there is "no right in the FMLA to be left alone" or be completely relieved from responding to an employer's discrete inquiries.   (O'Donnell v. Passport Health Communications, Third Circuit).  For instance, a request for materials from an employee is not an impermissible demand for work during FMLA leave.  (Sabourin v. Univ. of Utah, Tenth Circuit).  Even an employee taking occasional calls about their job while on leave is a "professional courtesy" that does not interfere with the exercise of FMLA rights.  (Kesler v. Barris, Eastern District of Michigan). 

However, employers should recognize that asking an employee to perform work while on leave can constitute interference.  For instance, asking an employee to perform work related tasks while on medical leave has been held to interfere with an employee's FMLA rights.  (Arban v. West Publishing Corp., Sixth Circuit).  Asking an employee to respond to regular phone calls, come into work for several hours a day, or talking with the employer about sales lead an employee is expected to generate during FMLA leave is unlawful interference.  (Sherman v. AI/FOCS, Inc., District Court of Massachusetts). 

So the moral of the story:  If it looks and smells like work, it probably is!  De minimis contact with employees on FMLA leave likely does not interfere with FMLA rights.  An occasional phone call asking about a file or providing closure on completed assignments is probably allowed.  However, when an employer starts to require an employee do work related tasks while on FMLA leave, such as showing up to the office or working from home for a few hours per week, this likely amounts to unlawful interference with an employee's FMLA rights and exposes the employer to liability.  

Employers, be smart when considering whether to ask an employee to do a work related task while they are on FMLA leave.  FMLA liability issues abound.


Special thanks to FMLA Insights for getting a copy of the Smith v. Genon Energy opinion.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...