An opinion was recently issued by the Federal District Court in Maine regarding the way in which entitlement to FMLA leave is calculated. In order to be eligible for leave under the federal FMLA, an employee with a serious health condition has to have worked for the employer for 12 months and for 1250 hours during the prior 12 month period. The issue in this case was whether an employee could count time worked for the employer when there was a substantial break in his employment.

The employee, Kenneth Rucker, was employed by the defendant, Lee Holding Company (Lee), for approximately five years. He then left his employment for five years, returning in June 2004. Between June 2004 and January 2005, when he injured his back, he averaged 48 hours per week. He sought medical treatment and missed 13 days of work between January and March 2005. On March 7, he was terminated. He then filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of the federal FMLA on the basis that he was terminated for taking medical leave under that Act.

Lee filed a motion to dismiss the claim on the basis that Rucker was not eligible for FMLA time because although he had reached the 1250 hour cap he had not been employed for at least twelve months at the time the leave commenced. Rucker agreed he had only been employed for seven months at the time of his termination. However, he argued the five years he worked for Lee in the past had to be included as though he had been continually employed for purposes of determining his FMLA eligibility.

Rucker relied on the regulations interpreting the FMLA, which state that the "12 months an employee must have been employed by the employer need not be consecutive months." The Federal District Court read this differently. The Court found the intent of the regulation was to cover employees who are employed for 12 non-consecutive months but who maintain an ongoing relationship with the employer and whose attendance may simply be interrupted by brief periods. It stated that "while [the regulation] accommodates individuals whose employment might be intermittent or casual, it makes no allowance for an employee who severs all ties with the employer for a period of years before returning." Since Rucker had severed his employment relationship and was not maintained as an employee, he was found ineligible for FMLA leave and the claim was dismissed.

In addition to the important legal holding, this decision is a good reminder to all covered employers to be aware of FMLA requirements and to be sure employees are eligible before awarding leave time.

This Newsletter is designed to provide information of a general nature only and is not intended to replace or provide professional legal advice.