ILNews

FMLA leave doesn't accrue hours for benefits

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed an Indiana District judge's decision that an employee on family medical leave doesn't accrue those hours for benefits and can be fired for violating attendance policies.

The decision comes in Michelle L. Bailey v. Pregis Innovative Packaging, Inc., No. 09-3539, which involves a Family and Medical Leave Act dispute out of the Northern District of Indiana's South Bend Division. U.S. Judge Philip Simon had granted summary judgment for the employer, which had used its "no-fault attendance policy" to fire Bailey for absenteeism during a 12-month period.

She claimed two absences in July 2006 were allowed through the FMLA and couldn't be used in the firing decision, but her employer disagreed that those absences were covered because she hadn't actually worked 1,250 hours the previous year in order to be eligible for FMLA time off. Bailey argued that her time off in the preceding year should have been credited and not counted toward the attendance policy.

"There is no basis for such a contortion of the statute - no hint in the statute or elsewhere that Congress envisaged and approved such a circumvention of the requirement than an applicant for FMLA leave have worked 1,250 hours in the preceding 12 months," 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner wrote. "We can't find a case directly on point, but are supported in our conclusion by the refusal of courts including our own to interpret the statutory term 'service' in an expansive fashion that would dilute the 1,250-hour requirement."

The 7th Circuit also addressed another of Bailey's arguments: that Pregis Innovative Packaging retaliated against her for taking FMLA leave by not wiping clean some of her past absences at the end of a 12-month period. The issue was whether this counts as an "employment benefit" as defined by the FMLA. Weighing both a Department of Labor position on the issue and specific caselaw, the 7th Circuit decided that these absenteeism point removals should be considered an employment benefit.

However, Bailey doesn't get any benefit from this decision because the court has held that an employee can't accrue any employment benefits during any period of leave.

"An employee must not be penalized by being deprived, just because he is on family leave, of a benefit that he has earned (i.e., that has been accrued to him)," Judge Posner wrote. "But by the same token he cannot, when on family leave, accrue benefits that accrue only by working."

The defendant's no-fault attendance policy is a lawful way to determine whether an employee has, despite absences, a sufficiently strong commitment to working for that employer, the court found. Bailey didn't show that commitment in this case, and the District judge's decision is affirmed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT