Family Medical Leave Act

FMLA

Family Medical Leave Act

Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, 29 U.S.C.S. § 2611-2654, certain employees are guaranteed up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave per year in order to attend to personal medical problems or medical problems experienced by certain eligible members of their family. In order to be an eligible employee under qualify under § 2611, an employee must have worked for at least 12 months for and provided 1,250 hours of service for his employer. (29 U.S.C.S. § 2611(2)(A)). In addition, under 29 U.S.C.S. § 2611(2)(B)(ii), employees working at a worksite at which his or her employer employs less than 50 employees if the total number of employees employed by that employer within 75 miles of that worksite is less than 50. An employee who does not meet the requirements of the FMLA is not required to medical leave under the act.

An interesting situation arises when an employer promises to give FMLA leave to all employees who conditions less than those required under the federal act. For example, if a company's employee handbook provides that all employees who have worked 1250 hours in the preceding 12 months are entitled to FMLA leave, and that employer later declines to give leave to an employee that is ineligible under the FMLA, does that employee had a cause of action against the employer? In order to determine that question, one must look to the applicable state employment contract law.

In Inscho v. Exide Corporation, 2001 Kan. App. LEXIS 1000, the Kansas Court of Appeals was called up to decide if an implied contract existed between an employee and an employer. The employee contended that an implied contract existed because of her receipt of an employee handbook from her employer. However, when the employee received the handbook from the employer, she signed a receipt specifically acknowledging that it was not a contract. Furthermore, in Inscho, there was no question that the employee had violated the employer's written code of conduct, which would have given them grounds to terminate her.

In Wilkinson v. Shoney's Inc., 2000 Kan. LEXIS 388, an employee alleged that his employer failed to follow the guidelines stated in the employee handbook prior to terminating him. The Supreme Court of Kansas determined that an employee handbook or other employment guidelines could impose duties outside of the law upon an employer.

In Stover v. Superior Industries International, Inc., 2000 Kan. App. LEXIS 1393, the Court of Appeals of Kansas was called upon to consider whether or not an employee's receipt of an employee handbook could constitute a quasi-contract. In order to determine whether or not an implied-in-fact contract exists, a court looks to see whether the parties had an agreement as to the terms of an employment contract. (Id. At 8). If so, then the terms of the parties' agreement apply to the employee's terms of employment.