Opinion ID: 806387
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Donnelly’s Medical Leave and FMLA Eligibility

Text: In the fall of Donnelly’s third and final year of his probationary contract – during which he would be evaluated for tenure and offered or not a permanent teaching position within the District – Donnelly became ill and required gallbladder surgery. Donnelly’s surgery occurred on November 27, 2006; he took leave from then through December 5, 2006.2 To be eligible for FMLA leave, an employee must work “at least 1,250 hours of service . . . during the previous 12-month period.” 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2)(A)(ii). The parties agree that the relevant date for determining FMLA eligibility is the date of Donnelly’s surgery, November 27, 2006. During the twelve months prior to that date, Donnelly worked 172 of the expected 189 days of the school year. Under the CBA between the teachers’ union – of which Donnelly was a member – and the District, “[t]he regular working day for all K-12 teachers shall be the equivalent of up to one (1) hour in excess of the pupil’s regular school day . . . but in no case . . . 2 Donnelly did not identify his requested leave for surgery as leave taken pursuant to the FMLA. The law does not require such an identification for FMLA’s protections to inhere. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c) (“When an employee seeks leave for the first time for a FMLA-qualifying reason, the employee need not expressly assert rights under the FMLA or even mention the FMLA.”). The District contends, as noted above and discussed more fully below, that the leave cannot be considered FMLA leave because Donnelly had not worked enough hours during the previous year to be eligible for such leave. The District does not dispute, however, that if Donnelly did work the requisite hours for eligibility his leave for surgery would properly be covered by the FMLA. 6 shall the working day exceed seven (7) hours and fifteen (15) minutes.” The CBA also acknowledges the District’s and the Union’s recogni[tion] that teachers have responsibilities which they readily and willingly perform that extend beyond the pupil’s regular school day. Among these responsibilities are classroom preparation, correction of papers, clerical work, record keeping, tutoring, parent-teacher and student-teacher conferences, staff meetings, curriculum planning and development, and in-service training. . . . To the extent practicable, the time between the end of the pupil’s regular school day and the close of the working day shall be devoted to the said responsibilities. The parties agree that, as per the terms of the CBA, Donnelly worked at least 1,247 hours – that is, seven hours and fifteen minutes per day for 172 days – during the twelvemonth period prior to his leave. That total falls three hours short of the statutory FMLA eligibility requirement. Donnelly asserted in a declaration in opposition to the District’s motion for summary judgment that he and “most teachers regularly work in excess of a total of one hour before and after class,” and that he “typically worked a total of 1.5 hours before and after class every day.” In an evaluation dated June 6, 2006, and thus within the relevant FMLA eligibility period, Chakar commented that Donnelly “arrives to work in a professional manner; early, on time and often. He often stays late into the afternoon working with his kids to ensure their success.” The record provides no further information regarding any hours Donnelly may have worked beyond the maximum specified in the CBA, nor does it clarify what, exactly, Donnelly did during any such additional hours. 7