FMLA Does Not
Require Paid Leave or Light Duty Programs
Most employers recognize that there are several closely related, but independent, employment laws which overlap in the areas of worker's compensation, risk management and human resources. With a recent decision, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit[1] made it clear that - The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) does not require an employer to pay an employee who has suffered a work related injury any particular wage and it does not require a light duty program. Light duty work and continued compensation are established through the worker's compensation program, not the FMLA.
Background
On
After her employment ended in March 2004, Hendricks filed suit seeking recovery of the pay differential between her wages as a utility driver and the wages she received while on light duty. She asserted that she was entitled to receive the higher utility driver pay rate under both the FMLA and the collective bargaining agreement. Hendricks made the novel argument that she was working "FMLA light duty." Hendricks said that she did not take traditional leave under the FMLA but, instead, substituted light duty work in lieu of leave. She acknowledged that there was no statute or regulation that directly supported her position but asserted that she felt this argument was consistent with the laws' requirement that an employer restore an employee to the same or an equivalent job after she had completed her FMLA leave.
The Court’s Findings
Confirming that there is no such thing as "FMLA light duty," the Court of Appeals promptly rejected Hendricks' claim. Read the basic principles of the FMLA the Court reviewed.
The FMLA does not require an employee receive a certain rate of pay. That issue is covered by worker's compensation, if there has been a work injury, not by the FMLA. The FMLA only requires that an employer permit an employee to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for illness and return to his or her prior post or an equivalent position.
Further, the FMLA requirement that an employee be returned to the same or an equivalent position and pay rate only applies if the employee is able physically to perform the functions and duties of that position. Because of her permanent restrictions, Hendricks was physically unable to perform the duties of a utility driver and, thus, was not entitled to return to the same or equivalent position. So, in this case, even if Hendricks took FMLA leave (and it is not clear whether or not she did) she could not physically perform the duties of a utility driver and was not entitled to return to that position.
Although this Court's conclusions may be already clear to many employers, it is good that the Court confirmed what the FMLA does and does not require. The FMLA does grant employees numerous rights, nonetheless, an employer may still operate a light duty program under the Worker's Compensation Act and pay a rate appropriate for the light duty position, even if it is less than the employee's regular wage rate.
If you have questions about the interaction of your worker's compensation program with other employment law requirements, please contact Ann Stewart or Kathleen Shortridge.
This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader must consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader's specific circumstances.