Source: https://slphrbenefitsupdate.com/tag/medical-leave/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:20:41+00:00

Document:
Two new Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawsuits filed against a Texas concrete manufacturer and Los Angeles garment manufacturer highlight the need for U.S. employers with more than 14 employees to consider and prepare to defend against potential disability discrimination exposures when dealing with medical leave requests by employees who might be considered disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as other expanding ADA enforcement exposures. Read more.
The lawsuits reflect that employers considering an employee’s request for medical leave should evaluate if the ADA requires the employer to grant the requested medical leave in addition to considering any otherwise applicable leave entitlement the requesting employee qualifies for under the Family & Medical Leave Act, state leave laws or otherwise applicable employer policies. As a result, all employers of 15 or more employees generally should review and tighten their policies and processes for evaluating requests for medical leave to minimize their exposure to claims that the denial of a requested medical leave violated the ADA.
Furthermore, employers also should consider the advisability of other more generalized policy or procedure updates to strengthen their defensibility against potential ADA and other disability claims generally in light of stepped up enforcement by the EEOC and private plaintiffs changes to the ADA made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) that makes it easier for employees to win ADA suits. To mitigate growing exposures to these claims, employers covered by the ADA and/or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 should review and strengthen their existing hiring and other employment practices and documentation to strengthen their defensibility in the face of these new challenges.
If you need assistance responding an employee’s request for medical leave or other accommodations, or otherwise to review, update or defend your disability discrimination or other employment, compensation, benefits or other workforce, internal controls or risk management practices, please contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor & Employment attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.
Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. When working with clients, Ms. Stamer combines a client-oriented approach with an extensive practical and technical knowledge of human resources, insurance, employee benefits, health care, privacy & security, corporate compliance and other legal matters to assist clients to formulate and administer pragmatic operational and risk management strategies and effective internal controls taking into account the financial, operational, political, legal and other realities confronting the client.
Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble Premier AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker who serves in the leadership of many professional and civil organizations. She regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of workforce management, employee benefits, compensation, risk management internal controls, and other related matters for businesses, trade and professional associations and others. Her insights on human resources risk management matters appear in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. To request Ms. Stamer’s assistance, for information about arranging for Ms. Stamer to provide workshops and other training, to access other publications or resources or for more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer at via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail at cstamer@solutionslawyer.net or see CynthiaStamer.com.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates and notices about upcoming programs and events, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. To unsubscribe, send an e-mail with “Unsubscribe” in the subject here. For important information concerning this communication see here.
©2010 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. License to reprint granted to Solutions Law Press. All other rights reserved.
Employers and employee benefit plan administrators deciding whether to approve the request of an employee for leave or other rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) due to the serious illness, birth, adoption or placement of a child with no legal or biological relationship with the employee should not underestimate the scope of the FMLA’s reach based on recent guidance. Employers and plan administrators also need to be sure that their policies are properly drafted and administered to apply right definition of child based on the class of leave requested as the family-status-relevant definitions under the FMLA and other laws continue to proliferate.
Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2010-3 (June 22, 2010) (WHD Interpretation) clarifies the definition of “son or daughter” under Section 101(12) of the FMLA as it applies to an employee standing “in loco parentis” to a child taking FMLA-protected leave for the birth or placement of a child, to care for a newborn or newly placed child, or to care for a child with a serious health condition. The WHD Interpretation does not address an employee’s entitlement to take military FMLA leave for a son or daughter, which is determined by separate definitions.
The WHD Interpretation states that the FMLA does not require an employee who intends to assume the responsibilities of a parent to prove that he or she provides both day-to-day care and financial support to be found to stand in loco parentis to a child.
According to the WHD Interpretation, the determination of when an employee has an in loco parentis relationship with a child is fact specific question based on the facts and circumstances with no particular factor being dispositive. . The WHD Interpretation adds that the fact that a child has a biological parent in the home, or has both a mother and a father, does not prevent a finding that the child is the “son or daughter” of an employee who lacks a biological or legal relationship with the child for purposes of taking FMLA leave.
“The key in determining whether the relationship of in loco parentis is established is found in the intention of the person allegedly in loco parentis to assume the status of a parent toward the child. The intent to assume such parental status can be inferred from the acts of the parties” taking into account a variety of factors including the age of the child; the degree to which the child is dependent on the person claiming to stand in loco parentis; the amount of support, if any, provided; and the extent to which duties commonly associated with parenthood are exercised.
Where an aunt assumes responsibility for raising a child after the death of the child’s parents.
In contrast, the WHD Interpretation notes that an employee who cares for a child while the child’s parents are on vacation would not be considered to be in loco parentis to the child.
When drafting and applying FMLA and other legally mandated policies, it’s important that employers, employee benefit plan sponsors and administrators and others use the correct standard for the circumstance prevented. The FMLA definition of child from the WHD Interpretation applies only to determinations of the status of a person as a son or daughter for purposes of the FMLA’s leave provisions regarding leaves requested due to the serious illness, birth or adoption of a child of an employee and not for military related FMLA leaves. Different standards apply for military related FMLA leaves. Similarly, the standards used to determine who qualifies as a child for purposes of FMLA may not necessarily be the same as legally required to decide when an individual qualifies as a child for other legal purposes. For instance, recent changes to federal health plan rules enacted as part of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act may require that group health plans and insurers use different standards to decide when an individual qualifies for enrollment as the child of an employee in dependent coverage beyond those applicable under the FMLA. It is highly advisable that employers and employee benefit plan sponsors and administrators carefully review and update their existing policies, plan documents and practices for compliance with the appropriate and currently applicable standards and exercise care in the administration of these practices to avoid costly mistakes.
[i] See 29 C.F.R. § 825.122(g), (h).
[ii] See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(A) – (C); 29 C.F.R. § 825.200.
[iii] 29 U.S.C. § 2611(12). See also 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.122(c), 825.800..
[iv] 29 C.F.R. § 825.122(c)(3).
[v] See 29 C.F.R. § 825.122(j); 73 Fed. Reg. 67,952 (Nov. 17, 2008).

References: § 825
 § 2612
 § 825
 § 2611
 § 825
 § 825