Family Medical Leave Act (Employment Law Series)
Price not available for Germany
You can still browse on Amazon. Try another country above.
Book Details
Author(s)
LandMark Publications
Publisher
LandMark Publications
ISBN / ASIN
B00IB09QRO
ISBN-13
978B00IB09QR5
Marketplace
Germany 🇩🇪
Description
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 99 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and interpret the provisions of the Family Medical Leave Act. The selection of decisions spans from 2005 to the date of publication.
The FMLA contains both prescriptive provisions that create a series of entitlements or substantive rights and proscriptive provisions that protect employees from retaliation or discrimination based on their exercise of those rights. Shirley v. Precision Castparts Corp., 726 F. 3d 675 (5th Cir. 2013)
The FMLA makes it unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise rights under the FMLA. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1). An employee on FMLA leave has the right to be restored to the same or an equivalent position that the employee had before he took leave. 29 U.S.C. § 2612. However, if an employee cannot perform an essential function of their original position because of a physical or mental condition, the employee has no right to restoration to a different position under FMLA. 29 C.F.R. § 825.216(c). James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago, 707 F. 3d 775 (7th Cir. 2013)
A plaintiff bringing an interference claim under the FMLA has the burden to prove that:
(1) he was an eligible employee; (2) the defendant was an employer as defined under the FMLA; (3) the employee was entitled to leave under the FMLA; (4) the employee gave the employer notice of his intention to take leave; and (5) the employer denied the employee FMLA benefits to which he was entitled.
Srouder v. Dana Light Axle Mfg., LLC, 725 F. 3d 608 (6th Cir. 2013)
The FMLA contains both prescriptive provisions that create a series of entitlements or substantive rights and proscriptive provisions that protect employees from retaliation or discrimination based on their exercise of those rights. Shirley v. Precision Castparts Corp., 726 F. 3d 675 (5th Cir. 2013)
The FMLA makes it unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise rights under the FMLA. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1). An employee on FMLA leave has the right to be restored to the same or an equivalent position that the employee had before he took leave. 29 U.S.C. § 2612. However, if an employee cannot perform an essential function of their original position because of a physical or mental condition, the employee has no right to restoration to a different position under FMLA. 29 C.F.R. § 825.216(c). James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago, 707 F. 3d 775 (7th Cir. 2013)
A plaintiff bringing an interference claim under the FMLA has the burden to prove that:
(1) he was an eligible employee; (2) the defendant was an employer as defined under the FMLA; (3) the employee was entitled to leave under the FMLA; (4) the employee gave the employer notice of his intention to take leave; and (5) the employer denied the employee FMLA benefits to which he was entitled.
Srouder v. Dana Light Axle Mfg., LLC, 725 F. 3d 608 (6th Cir. 2013)
