EmploymentUpdates and News

AUGUST 2007

JUDICIAL UPDATES

When On Notice of Employee’s Need for Medical Leave, Company Must Notify Employee of Rights Under CFRA/FMLA

Employee was in a 30-day psychiatric program. He provided Employer with documentation of a medical impairment. Upon expiration of the psychiatric treatment, Employee provided Employer with a medical certification form from his chiropractor. The form stated that Employee was still unable to perform his job duties for another 30 days. Employee informed Employer that any questions should be directed to his wife, his chiropractor, or his workers’ compensation attorney.

Employer tried to contact Employer directly several times, but received no response. Employer claimed that the chiropractor’s letter was not complete because it was from a chiropractor (as opposed to a medical doctor) and did not list any work restrictions. Employer never informed Employee of the availability of medical leave under the California Family Rights Act or its federal counterpart, the Family and Medical Leave Act. Employee was not aware that he could avail himself of these protections. Later, Employee was terminated for insubordination due to his failure to sustain an approved absence from work.

Under the CFRA, once an employee provides at least verbal notice sufficient to make the employer aware that the employee needs CFRA-qualifying leave, employers subject to the CFRA are required to provide notice to the employees of the right to request CFRA leave. Of course, an employer may require certification from the employee’s healthcare provider.

In this case, the Court of Appeal held that Employee was on notice of Employee’s need for medical leave, but failed to give him notice of his rights under the CFRA. Although Employer argued that Employee failed to return phone calls, Employer could have contacted Employee’s wife, chiropractor or attorney. A chiropractor is a healthcare provider who could certify Employee’s health condition. (Faust v. California Portland Cement Co., Court of Appeal case number B190950.)

NEXT: Attorney’s Fees Under Labor Code Section 218.5 in Claims for Non-Payment of Wages are Available to Both Exempt and Non-Exempt Employees

 

 

Inside:
California Harassment Training Regulations Receive Final Approval
No Word on Travel Reimbursement Regulations
New Federal Minimum Wage Is Now In Effect
Bills Pending in State Legislature
New Labor Commissioner Invites Sharing of Concerns Regarding Recent Changes to Meal and Rest Period Enforcement Practices
Supreme Court Ruling Means More Damages Available for Violations of Meal and Rest Period Requirements
When On Notice of Employee’s Need for Medical Leave, Company Must Notify Employee of Rights Under CFRA/FMLA
Attorney’s Fees Under Labor Code Section 218.5 in Claims for Non-Payment of Wages are Available to Both Exempt and Non-Exempt Employees
No-Hire Provision was Unenforceable
In FEHA Lawsuit, Correctional Officer Failed to Prove Alleged Retaliatory Act Was Protected by the First Amendment
In Order to Show Discrimination Based on Race of Gender, the Conduct Must Be Prompted by Gender or Race and Must be Sufficiently Severe or Pervasive
Employer Violated Section 132a by Requiring Workers’ Compensation Claimant to Use Earned Vacation Time Rather Than Sick Leave to Attend Medical Appointments for His Industrial Injuries
Also:
Klinedinst PC Announces Employment Law Symposium Dates In San Diego and L.A.
 

 

 


Home | About | News | Practice Areas | Profiles | Careers | Clients | Locations | Privacy | Contact

Copyright 1998-2008 KLINEDINST PC. All rights reserved.