Quarterly Bonuses

Based on quarterly revenues, every employee receives a bonus, however, it is structured so any employee who has unpaid time taken (over 3 days) will not receive a bonus portion.

We have a situation where an employee who is protected under FMLA for a medical condition she has, will end up with more than 3 unpaid days in the past quarter. The CEO wants to group this individual in with those employees who have unpaid days that were unexcused and will not receive bonuses. His argument is that FMLA does not protect giving a bonus because it is not a "benefit" and if someone were to take a few weeks off for an FMLA reason we would not have to pay them their salary, and therefore FMLA does not protect any type of payroll situation whether it is regular pay or a bonus.

The employee argues that she is being penalized for taking an FMLA absence and even though she wasn't entitled to be paid for the days she missed under FMLA, she should not have to count those as unpaid days that would affect her bonus potential.

What are others thoughts on this?

Comments

  • 3 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • Its a good question.

    Raises and bonuses that are discretionary, need not be given to the EE on FML. Pay adjustments that are not, such as cost-of-living increases, shall be given to the EE.

    In my opinion, the question has to do with whether or not the EE had to be there to participate in the raise. Just showing up would have given the EE the raise. You cannot penalize the EE for not showing up during FML, therefor he/she should get the bonus. This appears to be a judgement call about how truly discretionary a revenue based bonus is. I am sure others can give you good reasons not to pay, but I think you should.
  • A good rule of thumb for answering questions like this concerning the FMLA: Take the FMLA aspect out of the question and ask yourself if the person would have been eligible for the bonus if not for FMLA. If the answer is yes....better give them the bonus.
  • I suggest that you consider the implications of 29 CFR 825.215(e).
    Vance Miller
    Editor, Missouri Employment Law Letter
    Armstrong Teasdale LLP
    (314) 621-5070
    [email]vmiller@armstrongteasdale.com[/email]
Sign In or Register to comment.