Opinion ID: 852353
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Powell's FMLA Eligibility

Text: Under the FMLA, an eligible employee is entitled to be restored to the position of employment held by the employee when the leave commenced or an equivalent position. 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1). One of the requirements of an eligible employee is employment by the employer for at least 1,250 hours of service with such employer during the previous twelve month period. Id. § 2611(2)(A). In the twelve months before his leave, Powell served more than 1,250 hours in his capacity as a math teacher, but fewer than 1,250 hours as head football coach. Powell asserts that his total hours of service to GCSC required his reinstatement in all capacities. GCSC argues that Powell's service as teacher and coach are to be viewed separately for purposes of the FMLA, so Powell was entitled to reinstatement as a teacher, but not as a coach. Whether an employee's FMLA eligibility is determined by the employee's entire service to the employer or separately for each position is an issue of first impression. The trial court concluded that Powell was an eligible employee for purposes of both his teaching and coaching positions. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the issue is controlled by the parties' treatment of the jobs as unified or separate. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Powell, 881 N.E.2d 57, 58 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). The Court of Appeals concluded that because the parties treated the jobs as entirely separate and independent of one another, they are separate for the purposes of FMLA coverage. Id. Because this issue is a question of law, we review it de novo. For the reasons explained below, we hold that an employee filling multiple positions with the same employer is eligible for FMLA leave as to all positions if that employee has completed 1,250 total hours of service to that employer in the twelve months preceding the request for leave. Because this issue is purely an issue of statutory interpretation, we look first to the language of the FMLA. The parties are the Gary Community School Corporationan employer subject to the FMLAand Powell as an employee. An employee is defined in the FMLA simply as any individual employed by an employer. 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(e)(1), 203(d), 2611(3). Employers are defined as any person engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce who employs 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year. Id. § 2611(4)(A)(i). Only an eligible employee may assert claims under the FMLA. The definition of eligible employee in § 2611(2) requires: (1) employment for at least 12 months by the employer from whom leave was requested, id. § 2611(2)(A)(i), and (2) employment for at least 1,250 hours of service by that employer during the previous 12-month period, id. § 2611(2)(A)(ii). None of these definitions suggests that separate positions held by the employee are relevant. Importantly, the test for eligibility is phrased in terms of hours of service to an employer, not service in any particular position. In short, the definitions are entity specific, not job specific, and the service requirements for an eligible employee are in terms of overall service, not service in any specific position. Our conclusion that the 1,250-hour requirement applies to the employee's overall service to the employer is supported by the legislative history of the FMLA and applicable federal regulations. Committee reports accompanying passage of the FMLA instruct that the minimum ours of service requirement is meant to be construed broadly. H.R.Rep. No. 103-8(I), at 35 (1993); S.Rep. No. 103-3, at 25 (1993), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1993, pp. 3, 25. The FMLA directs that regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-19 (2008), apply under the FMLA for determining hours of service. § 2611(2)(C). Under the FLSA, to determine hours worked for purposes of overtime compensation the employer must total all the hours worked by the employee for him in that workweek (even though two or more unrelated job assignments may have been performed) ... 29 C.F.R. § 778.103 (2008). Similarly, FMLA regulations provide that the determination of hours worked is not limited by methods of recordkeeping, or by compensation agreements that do not accurately reflect all the hours an employee has worked for or been in service to the employer. Any accurate accounting of actual hours worked under FLSA's principles may be used. Id. § 825.110(c)(1); see also H.R. Rep. 103-8(I), at 35 (same); S.Rep. No. 103-3, at 25 (same). Finally, the regulations provide that [n]ormally the legal entity which employs the employee is the employer under FMLA. Applying this principle, a corporation is a single employer rather than its separate establishments or divisions. 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c); see also id. § 825.600 (describing the school board as the employer for purposes of the 50-employee test in its example). Thus, GCSCthe legal entity employing Powellis the employer under the FMLA, even though Powell had separate academic and athletic supervisors. GCSC points to § 207 of the FLSA, incorporated by reference in the FMLA. The only portion of § 207 arguably relevant to Powell's relationship with GCSC is subsection (p)(2), which provides If an employee of a public agency which is a ... political subdivision of a State... undertakes, on an occasional or sporadic basis and solely at the employee's option, part-time employment for the public agency which is in a different capacity from any capacity in which the employee is regularly employed with the public agency, the hours such employee was employed in performing the different employment shall be excluded by the public agency in the calculation of the hours for which the employee is entitled to overtime compensation under this section. Gary argues that Powell's coaching position was such a position and should therefore be excluded from the FMLA hours of service calculation. It seems a stretch to characterize a head football coaching position as occasional or sporadic or solely at the employee's option. Moreover, the regulation under section 207 specifically explains that any activity traditionally associated with teaching (e.g., coaching, career counseling, etc.) will not be considered as employment in a different capacity.  29 C.F.R. § 553.30(c)(5) (2008). We do not find subsection (p)(2) applicable to Powell's employment. Finally, GCSC notes that it employed Powell under separate contracts and may have issued separate paychecks for coach and teacher. In view of the statute and regulations already described, we do not find these relevant.