In a recent case of first impression, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that an employee with a five year break in service was entitled to count previous periods of employment with the same employer towards satisfying the length of service requirement under the Family and Medical Leave Act. This ruling is significant, and all employers need to be familiar with it when determining whether an employee qualifies for a requested leave.
The employee in question, Kenneth Rucker, worked as an automobile salesman for Lee Auto Malls ("Lee") in Maine for approximately five years. Mr. Rucker left Lee for other work. After five years working elsewhere, Mr. Rucker returned to Lee. Seven months later, he took a medical leave, and two months later he was terminated. Mr. Rucker then brought suit, alleging that he was terminated in violation of rights guaranteed him under the FMLA.
In order to be entitled to FMLA protections, an employee must have been employed by the employer in question for "at least 12 months", among other things. Lee moved to dismiss the case, arguing that only the most recent seven month period of employment counted toward the eligibility period. The Federal District Court of Maine agreed and dismissed the case, holding that Mr. Rucker could not combine his previous period of employment with the more recent employment period.
Mr. Rucker appealed, and the First Circuit reversed the District Court's decision. Interestingly, the Court found that both the FMLA and the regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor were ambiguous on the point in question. The DOL, however, took the position that its regulations do allow "bridging" of employment periods, at least up to the five year break in service for Mr. Rucker. The First Circuit was persuaded by the DOL's interpretation of its own regulations and held that Mr. Rucker was eligible for FMLA protection, in spite of his five year break in service.
This expansion of FMLA protections was not anticipated by most employment attorneys. Employers must, however, be aware of this decision, and its implications, when determining whether employees qualify for FMLA protection.
This article is intended to serve as a summary of the issues outlined herein. While it may include some general guidance, it is not intended as, nor is it a substitute for, legal advice. Your receipt of Good Company or any of its individual articles does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Sheehan Phinney Bass + Green or the Sheehan Phinney Capitol Group. The opinions expressed in Good Company are those of the authors of the specific articles.
|
