Pursuant to a proposal elevated by Ms. Bridget Stone, Supervisor for Customer Service Department, that a Customer Service Representative, Ms. Annette Green, be dismissed from her job due to violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), I am hereby documenting essential facts of the incident for your review and recommendation for appropriate action. Ms. Green filed for vacation leave but to be used to take care of a very sick mother. The leave should have been filed under FLMA . Likewise, Ms. Green exceeded the leave period by one (1) week without notice nor approval of her supervisor. As such, she is currently being recommended for dismissal.
The details of the situation started when Ms. Green informed Ms. Stone that she is leaving for Chicago to take care of a very sick mother. She knew that the leave should be filed under FMLA but she requested Ms. Stone that it be filed under her vacation leave. The inclusive dates filed for the leave are from December 15 to December 30, 2016, or two (2) weeks’ time. On January 2, 2017, she has not returned for work. She did not inform anyone from the office of her intentions to extend the leave. She reported back to work only on January 15, 2017. She was therefore fired. As a result, Ms. Green filed a legal case against the company as an FMLA retaliatory claim.
A similar claim has been filed in a case entitled Escriba v. Poultry Farms . According to the case, the employee indicated that “her leave clearly triggered FMLA protections” . According to case facts, if an employee elects to take vacation time and expressly declines FLMA-protected leave, the company “can’t force [the employee] to take a leave if they’re requesting to take the availability of their vacation because that would be reducing a benefit that [the employee] would have.” By first exhausting paid vacation time, an employee thus preserves the balance of any and all available FMLA time” . The court ruled in favor of the employer for the reason that the employee’s previous requests were filed under FMLA. On this particular occasion, she expressly requested not to use FMLA; therefore, “the company couldn’t have interfered with her FMLA rights” . She was correctly fired for violating informing the company for violating the “three-day no-show, no-call rule.” Under this policy, an employee is automatically terminated if he or she is absent for a period of three work days without notifying the company or without seeking a leave of absence” .
Evaluating the case with the situation in our organization, Ms. Green has been found to similarly violate our policy on absences and leaves. By not informing her boss of her inability to return to work beyond the date of filed vacation, she had to be fired, as prescribed. Thus, our company would not have any liability in the current legal complaint being filed by Ms. Green.
The facts clearly indicate that Ms. Green was the one who was remiss in her duties and responsibilities, as well as in adherence to company policies in terms of absences and leaves. However, our organization could be subjected to costs in terms of time and money to attend to the filed cases in court. In this regard, one proposes inviting Ms. Green for a formal meeting to advise her of the repercussions of her action. An out-of-court settlement could be a more viable course of action that would minimize time, effort, and costs if and when the legal case would pursue.
For your evaluation and action.
References
Bilski, J. (2016, July 30). The 5 most influential FMLA rulings in recent memory. Retrieved from HR Benefits Alert: http://www.hrbenefitsalert.com/most-influential-fmla-rulings/
Maria Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. (2014, February 25). Retrieved from fmlainsights.com: http://www.fmlainsights.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/311/2014/03/Escriba-v.-Foster-Poultry-Farms.pdf
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Family and Medical Leave Act. Retrieved from dol.gov: https://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/
