Source: https://www.thenjemploymentlawfirmblog.com/category/fmla-discrimination/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:44:26+00:00

Document:
FMLA Discrimination Category Archives — The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog Published by New Jersey Employment Attorney — Resnick Law Group, P.C.
Paid sick leave is a controversial subject throughout the country. Only a handful of states require it in some form. Federal law only mandates unpaid leave. Employers tend to oppose paid sick leave laws, since these laws require them to pay their employees for time they are not at work. Advocates of paid sick leave laws point out the reality that people get sick, that they need to be able to take time to rest and recover, and that many people will come to work sick if they know that the alternative is losing needed income. Sick people who come to work instead of staying home are rarely as effective at their jobs during that time, and they risk making even more people sick. New Jersey joined the small number of states that mandate paid sick leave earlier this year, when the Legislature passed the New Jersey Paid Sick Leave Act (NJPSLA). When it takes effect on October 29, 2018, this law will apply to all employers in the state, regardless of number of employees.According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), only 10 states, including New Jersey, and the District of Columbia had mandatory paid sick leave as of May 2018. Federal law contains no provisions for mandatory paid leave for any purpose, including sick leave and parental leave. Internationally, the United States is an outlier among developed nations. A 2009 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) compared paid sick leave policies in 22 countries. With the exceptions of Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, all of the countries are located in Europe or North America. The CEPR found that the U.S. is one of only three countries, along with Canada and Japan, with no paid sick leave whatsoever at the national level. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Luxembourg and Norway provide paid sick leave for up to 50 days for serious medical conditions like cancer.
The NJPSLA differs from most state paid sick leave laws in the breadth of its coverage. It defines an “employer” as “any…entity that employs employees in the State,” with no exception for small businesses. By contrast, the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) only applies to employers with 50 or more employees, and to employees who have worked a minimum of 1,250 hours for their employer in the last 12 months. The FMLA also differs in the sense that it only requires unpaid leave.
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., guarantees that qualifying employees of covered employers have access to unpaid leave, with protection against interference or retaliation by employers. A federal appellate court recently ruled that an FMLA retaliation claim may proceed. Jones v. Gulf Coast Health Care of Del., LLC, No. 16-11142, slip op. (11th Cir., Apr. 19, 2017). The defendant employer terminated the plaintiff employee after he took FMLA leave, citing vacation photographs posted to social media by the plaintiff during their leave period. Although the case originated in Florida, it could be relevant to New Jersey employment disputes, since no court here appears to have ruled on the specific issue of social media posts during FMLA leave.
The FMLA requires employers with at least 50 employees to provide job-protected leave to eligible workers. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes New Jersey, has established standards for retaliation claims. To prove retaliation, a plaintiff must meet a three-part test: (1) The plaintiff invoked a right to leave under the FMLA, and (2) the employer made an adverse decision that (3) “was causally related to her invocation of rights.” Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294, 301-02 (3d Cir. 2012).
The plaintiff worked for the defendant for about 11 years, from 2004 until his termination in 2015. The defendant operates a facility providing long-term nursing care. The plaintiff’s job involved planning and coordinating events and activities for residents. He requested FMLA leave in 2014 for shoulder surgery, which the defendant granted from September 26 to December 18, 2014. On the final day of leave, the plaintiff’s doctor told him he could not resume regular physical activity at work until February 2015. The plaintiff asked the defendant to allow him to return to work on light duty, but the defendant refused to allow him to return until he “could submit an unqualified fitness-for-duty certification.” Jones, slip op. at 4. The defendant granted the plaintiff an additional 30 days’ leave instead.
Employment statutes often use broad language that leaves much open to interpretation. The federal and state agencies charged with administering and enforcing these statutes develop their own interpretations of the statutes, which may or may not match the interpretations of the court system. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that courts must defer to agencies’ interpretations of the statutes that they administer, provided that those interpretations do not exceed the agencies’ legal authority. This is known as the “Chevron doctrine,” after the court’s decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The Third Circuit based a recent decision, which involved a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) discrimination claim, on Chevron. Egan v. Delaware River Port Authority, No. 16-1471, slip op. (3rd Cir., Mar. 21, 2017).
The FMLA requires covered employers to provide unpaid leave to qualifying employees for specific medical- and family-related reasons. The statute is heavy on qualifications regarding which employers are covered, how and when employees qualify for leave, and which situations provide a valid basis for requesting leave. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has promulgated additional rules and procedures for determining who is entitled to leave. See 29 U.S.C. § 2611 et seq., 29 C.F.R. Part 825. Employers cannot interfere with the rights guaranteed by the FMLA, and they may be liable to aggrieved employees for damages if they do. 29 U.S.C. §§ 2615, 2617.
In the context of employment litigation, the Chevron doctrine comes into play with regard to rules promulgated by agencies like the WHD to help identify statutory violations. See Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). The regulation at issue in Egan involved the evidence required to prove discrimination and retaliation under the FMLA. The WHD has interpreted the statute as prohibiting employers from “us[ing] the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c). The question before the Third Circuit involved whether the plaintiff had to prove that his FMLA leave directly resulted in an adverse employment action.
In September 2014, the story of an employer who laid off a woman shortly after learning of her cancer diagnosis went “viral,” moving quickly from local to global news coverage. The story highlights an important question for employees and their advocates about how state and federal employment laws protect people when they are diagnosed with cancer or another serious illness. Federal laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) offer some protection, but they do not apply to many small employers. State laws, such as New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD), sometimes offer broader protections.
A local news site in Pennsylvania reported on a woman who notified her employer of about 12 years that she had been diagnosed with cancer. The employer reportedly sent her a handwritten letter informing her that that he was laying her off without pay, noting that she would not be able to fulfill her employment duties while also undergoing cancer treatment. The story took off when a family member posted a copy of the letter to the internet.
The woman has avoided media attention and is reportedly focusing on her treatment. The employer has stated that everyone has misinterpreted the letter, and that he intended to help her by giving her time away from work. Local news reported that he did not contest her unemployment claim, which gives her 26 weeks of benefits. Nothing else has appeared in the news about the story since mid-September.

References: § 2601
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2611
 v. 
 § 825