Rate this article:
Average rating:
Total votes: 1
The Family and Medical Leave Act does not provide for leave time for bathroom breaks, even if the need for such breaks is caused by a medical condition.
An employer did not violate the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when it terminated a call-center employee who spent too much time away from his desk, even though the employee's diabetes medication increased his need to use the bathroom.
The employee was diagnosed with diabetes while working for the defendant, but he never missed a day of work because of his condition. Instead, the medication he took increased his need to use the restroom without warning throughout the day.
As a call-center worker, the employee needed to be at his workstation to receive calls for the majority of the day; his supervisor had issued a break schedule all employees were to follow. After the employee was disciplined on several occasions for being away from his desk or late to work, he provided a doctor's note that explained his diabetes medication increased his need to use the restroom. When asked to provide more information about his health condition, he refused, arguing that his doctor's note was enough and he needed FMLA leave to use the bathroom whenever necessary.
The court explained that the FMLA only provides leave for a "serious health condition" that leaves an individual incapacitated for a period of time. This includes missing at least three consecutive days of work or being under the care of a healthcare provider for a series of treatments. In this case, the employee never missed a day of work because of his diabetes or for any other reason and did not see a doctor for treatment. After the employee refused to provide additional information about his request for leave, his employer was not obligated to continue considering whether he was entitled to leave under the FMLA.
This case shows that FMLA leave generally cannot be taken by an employee who is physically able to work full-time. Such requests must be accompanied by detailed medical information before they will be considered.
-- Paul Freehling, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see Mauder vs. Metropolitan Transit Auth. of Harris County, Texas, -- F.3d --, 446 f3d 574 (5th Cir. 2006).
The "sexually charged" atmosphere of the writing sessions for a popular sitcom did not create a hostile work environment for one of the writers' assistants.
A female writers' assistant on the popular sitcom "Friends" did not suffer from sexual harassment by working in an environment where sexual discussions were common, because such behavior was part of the creative process, a court recently ruled.
The television show revolved around a group of single, sexually active young adults living in New York, and the plaintiff was warned before being hired that she would be subjected to sexual humor, stories, jokes, etc.
The plaintiff did not allege that any writer ever made sexual comments directly to her or about her, but that the constant coarse and sexual talk, including some that did not seem relevant to the show, constituted sexual harassment. The court explained that under both federal and California law, sexual talk in the workplace is not per se enough to constitute sexual harassment. Instead, the court had to consider the specific facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether the language created a hostile work environment for the plaintiff. Although a plaintiff can show sexual harassment from comments not directed at her specifically, it is more difficult to do so.
In this case, the court found the sexual banter was an expected part of the workplace, it was not directed at any particular individual, and both male and female writers engaged in the discussions as part of the creative process. Further, there was no evidence that the language interfered with the plaintiff's work.
This case demonstrates how importance context can be when determining whether sexual harassment has occurred. The same language and behavior that was acceptable during the writing process for "Friends" could have easily constituted sexual harassment in a more ordinary workplace.
-- Paul Freehling, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see Lyle vs. Warner Bros. Television, -- Cal.Rpt.3d --, 2006 WL 1028558 (Cal., April 20, 2006)].
Employer did not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act by reducing pay of exempt employees because of time-reporting errors.
A federal court recently ruled that it was legal for a utility company to pay its overtime-exempt employees according to the number of hours they worked, and that underpayments that resulted from employees reporting the wrong amount of time did not violate the law.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employees who are not eligible to be paid overtime must be paid on a so-called salary basis, which means that at each pay period, the employee is paid a predetermined amount which cannot be reduced because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed.
Because of various federal regulations for utility companies, the employer required all employees to submit the numbers of hours they worked each week and then paid employees biweekly. Exempt workers received 1/26th of their full salary every two weeks. Pursuant to company policy, exempt workers were instructed to make sure their time sheets showed that they worked at least 40 hours each week. Because of the way schedules were assigned, some exempt workers ended up actually working 44 hours in one week of a pay period and only 36 in the second week. In such a case, the workers were instructed to "add" an extra four hours to the second workweek to make sure they were paid the full amount of their salary. The Department of Labor approved this practice.
The problem arose because the exempt workers sometimes forgot to add the extra hours to their workweek and thus were not paid the full 1/26th of their salary. They sued the company, arguing that this practice caused them to lose their exempt status and thus be eligible for overtime.
The court disagreed. It found that the company in fact did guarantee that each exempt employee would receive the same salary every two weeks as long as they reported at least 40 hours of time worked. Additionally, the company allowed employees to report hours not worked, specifically so they could maintain their salary level. Inadvertent reporting errors that were later corrected did not convert the exempt employees to nonexempt.
This case demonstrates that employers may pay their exempt employees according to how many hours they work, as long as it does not make salary reductions based on the quality or quantity of work performed.
-- Paul Freehling, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see Acs vs. Detroit Edison Co., -- F.3d --, 2006 WL 954180 (6th Cir. April 14, 2006)].
According to an arbitrator, begin counting length of employment for seniority purposes on the first day of work, not date of hire.
In most companies with unionized employees, seniority, or how long a worker has been employed, is an important job issue. Employees with more seniority enjoy more benefits than newer workers; for example, the most senior workers are usually the last to be let go during a layoff and the first to be recalled when more jobs open up. Rules for figuring out how much seniority a worker has are set out in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the union and the company. Recently, an arbitrator decided that seniority for one particular company began the first day an employee started work, not the date he was hired.
The issue arose after two workers were hired on the same day. The CBA contained a "tiebreaker" clause for such situations, stating that in such a case, seniority was given to the worker with the highest number when comparing the last four digits of the two workers' Social Security numbers (a random method). The CBA also defined seniority as the "period of unbroken service since the employee's most recent date of hire." In this case, the man with the lower number began work the day after he was hired, and the employee with the higher number did not begin work for two weeks while waiting for results of his drug test.
The arbitrator held that in this case, the worker with the lower Social Security number actually had more seniority, because he started work first. In the CBA, seniority was defined with respect to length of service, and the higher numbered employee actually had a shorter period of service. Therefore, there was no true tie between the two men and no reason to use the tiebreaker clause.
This case shows the importance of carefully reading all terms in the CBAs, handbooks and other documents that regulate and define the employment process to make sure both employer and employee know what is expected of them.
-- Paul Freehling, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see 179 LRR 166 (April 17, 2006)].
