|
Answer: |
No. Without receiving sufficient information in a leave request that would give the employer a reason to believe that the request potentially involved an FMLA-qualifying reason, an employer had no duty to inquire further to determine whether leave actually qualified as FMLA leave.
Notice requirements. An employee is not required to assert her right to take leave under the FMLA by expressly stating that FMLA leave is requested. Notice must be sufficient, however, to make the employer aware that her absence is due to a potentially FMLA-qualifying reason. Once an employee gives sufficient notice to her employer that potentially FMLA-qualifying leave is needed, the employer must then ascertain whether the employee's absence actually qualifies for FMLA protection.
Insufficient information provided. In this case, the federal court of appeals for the 11th Circuit disagreed with the employee’s argument that she had provided sufficient information regarding the reason for her leave request. Since the employee did not volunteer additional information about her daughter's alleged pregnancy complications, the communications the employee provided were insufficient to shift the burden to the employer to request further information, the court reasoned, because the employer could not reasonably have been expected to conclude that her absence qualified for FMLA leave.
According to the court, the employee was obligated to inform the employer that her daughter was experiencing complications due to her pregnancy, was unable to care for herself, or to provide some other indication that her adult daughter was “incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability.” Only then would the burden to inquire further shift to the employer, the court said. Under the circumstances in the case, the employee did not provide the employer with that kind of notice, but merely expressed her desire to assist her adult daughter during the birth of her grandchild, a condition which the FMLA does not cover, the court concluded.
Source: June Cruz v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., CA-11, Dkt. No. 05-10245, October 31, 2005. |