In a ruling that bolsters employers’ established FMLA leave notice requirements, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the employer and upheld a former employee’s discharge for failure to follow the call-in requirements of his employer’s attendance policy in White v. Dana Light Axle Manufacturing, LLC. The decision is assuring to employers who have established and adhere to FMLA leave policies that require employees follow specific procedures to notify their employers of their intent to take protected FMLA leave.
Relying upon 29 CFR §825.302(d), the Court held that an employer may enforce its usual and customary notice and procedural requirements against an employee claiming FMLA-protected leave, unless unusual circumstances justify the employee’s failure to comply with the employer’s requirements.
The Court rejected the former employee’s allegation that his employer interfered with his rights under the FMLA by imposing and enforcing its own internal notice requirements when those requirements went beyond the bare minimum that would generally be sufficient under the FMLA to constitute proper notice. It was undisputed that the employee failed to report to work or call in pursuant to the employer’s no-fault attendance policy, and failure to do so was a basis for denying an employee’s taking FMLA protected leave. The former employee produced no evidence demonstrating any type of “unusual circumstances” that would have justified his failure to follow the call-in requirements of his employer’s attendance policy. And there was also no evidence that the employer waived these requirements for him.
Notably, former Sixth Circuit precedent did not permit employers to limit an employee’s FMLA rights if an employee failed to comply with procedure requirements more stringent than the statute. However, this Court ruled that the 2003 decision of Cavin v Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc was abrogated due to the material revisions to 29 CFR §825.302(d). These revisions expressly allow an employer to condition FMLA-protected leave upon that employee’s compliance with the employer’s usual notice and procedural requirements, absent unusual circumstances.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Department of Labor
- Coronavirus
- Discrimination
- Labor Law
- FLSA
- Overtime Pay
- Non-Compete Agreements
- National Labor Relations Board
- Wage & Hour
- Federal Trade Commission
- Privacy
- Reasonable Accommodation
- NLRB
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Workplace Accommodations
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- FMLA
- Arbitration
- Employment Litigation
- Workplace Violence
- Religion Discrimination
- Medical Marijuana
- IRS
- Litigation
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- National Labor Relations Act
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Accommodation
- Race Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- Whistleblower
- EEOC
- ADAAA
- United States Supreme Court
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Title VII
- Employer Rules
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- NLRA
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Disability Law
- Securities Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- SECURE Act
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Privacy Laws
- Representative Election Regulations
- Department of Justice
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- Federal Court Overturns Expansion of Overtime Requirements
- U.S. Supreme Court to Review Title VII Reverse Discrimination Case
- NLRB General Counsel Expands Focus on Non-Compete Agreements and Stay-Or-Pay Agreements
- FTC's Non-Compete Rule Struck Down
- District Court Finds in Favor of FTC, Declines to Issue Injunction
- DOL Increases Compensation Threshold for Exemption Eligibility
- Federal Trade Commission Announces New Rule Invalidating Non-Compete Agreements
- EEOC Announces Final Rule Providing Guidelines under the PWFA
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Immediate Termination
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update February 2024