Item 1
- The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a law requiring all employers with group health insurance coverage to grant its employees with unpaid yet job-protected leaves without the postponement of their health insurance, subject to their eligibility. Whereas the FMLA allows employers to let their employees with family and medical problems go on leave without pay, it nevertheless requires them to preserve the job positions and health insurance benefits of eligible employees. Employees eligible under the FMLA include full and part-time employees with a weekly working duration of, or exceeding 50% of a normal workweek, which roughly corresponds to 40 hours (Twomey, 2009). In the case of Alex, who undoubtedly suffers from side effects of uncontrolled bowel movement arising from his use of medication for diabetes, he is not eligible for FMLA leave because there is no sufficient showing that his condition precludes him to perform his employment duties.
- The ineligibility of Alex for FMLA leave arises from the fact that the following qualifications do not cover his condition: serious health condition suffered by the employee and/or members of his immediate family, childbirth, adoption, foster care and caretaker duties, and compelling circumstances related to “any qualifying exigency” (Twomey, 2009). The fact that Alex is suffering from uncontrollable bowel movement, which is a side effect of his diabetes medication, is not enough to justify his entitlement for FMLA leave, since it does not qualify under any of the foregoing qualifications.
Item 2
- Should Angelo T. choose to pursue legal action against Hilton Hospitality, Inc., the court would most likely decide in favor of his side. The court recognizes the salience of the FMLA, which requires employers with group health insurance coverage to grant leaves to aggrieved employers without removing their health insurance benefits and their entitlement to their positions while on hiatus. Moreover, the FMLA recognizes any serious health condition afflicting an employee as an adequate ground for its application (Twomey, 2009). Given that Hilton has gained ample notice from the doctor of Angelo on the propensity of his health condition, it should have considered the likelihood that he would be absent earlier than the time prescribed by his doctor, keeping in mind the necessity to provide him with an FMLA leave.
- A number of key factors affect the judgment of the court in deciding on the case of Angelo against Hilton. The extent of the health condition of Angelo could make or break his prospects on gaining an FMLA leave. Angelo sufficiently proved his case through the attestation of his doctor, who noted Hilton that he needs to rest after April 1. Additionally, the knowledge of Hilton on the health condition of Angelo is an undeniable aspect it must take note and match with corresponding actions in line with the FMLA (Twomey, 2009).
Item 3
- The most important facts Kit possess that could make his application form FMLA leave successful are the status of the disease suffered by his wife and the consequent awareness of ABC on it (Twomey, 2009).
- The ABC could only present a procedural form of defense in maintaining its stand against Kit, who is applying for an FMLA leave. Through emphasizing the primacy of the earlier decision of Kit to retire over his eventual desire to apply for an FMLA leave, the ABC could present his side as the more winnable one (Twomey, 2009).
- Kit, however, has a strong case against ABC. The FMLA recognizes the right of Kit to choose either retirement or hiatus once he or a relative is suffering from a serious health condition. Given that the health condition of the spouse of Kit is undisputedly serious, the ABC should have abided by the law through immediately granting him an FMLA leave (Twomey, 2009).
References
Twomey, R. (2009). Employment law: Going beyond compliance to engagement and empowerment. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
