Clarification Needed!

KP68 · November 2003

Employee is not eligible for FMLA until July 15, 2004...if his spouse has her baby prior to that date, is he able to take 12 weeks off starting the date he is eligible(on July 15th, 2004), even though the birth was a few months prior to the date he became eligible?

Furthermore, this has to be taken all at once for birth reasons, not intermittent leave, correct?

cthr · November 2003

FMLA for the birth of a child can be taken any time during the 12 months following birth. I believe it must be taken consecutively if it is for bonding and intermittently if it is for medical reasons.

HGHAHR · November 2003

I have a similar situation where the ee is pregnant and experiencing complications. She hasn't been here 12 months so she doesn't qualify for FML, but if I don't count this toward her 12 weeks, she'll be able to take an additional 12 weeks after the birth. Can the time she is missing now due to complications be counted even though she hasn't met the 12-month eligibility?

LindaS · November 2003

While the federal regulations provide a baseline for employers to follow, employers always have the option of going above and beyond the law but keep in mind, if you do for one you have to do for all. If you grant this EE FMLA without her having the requisite time in to the company, you will be forced to grant it again, and again, and again. Think twice before doing so.

Don D · November 2003

The law allows you to award the time in the case in a positive sense; but, not to charge her for it in a negative sense (because she's not eligible for it).

Clarification Needed!

Comments