Legal Question in Medical Leave in District of Columbia
''legal grounds on return to work timeframe''
An employee was afforded family medical leave in D.C. because of complications of pregnancy. She returned after eight weeks (baby was born during that timeframe) with a doctor's statement, certifying her eligibility to return to work - no work limitations were noted by the doctor.
Given that, the employee was told to report to work two days later but she showed up two months, to the day, later and stated that she ''took her four months.''
Needless to say, she had no job upon return because she (1) agreed to return to work after having brought in the doctor's statement (2) she did not re-apply for family medical leave nor did she request a leave of absence.
Having said all of that, my question is What legal grounds, if any, would she have if she decided to sue her employer?
2 Answers from Attorneys
Re: ''legal grounds on return to work timeframe''
If the original agreed upon leave was for four months under FMLA in connection with the birth of
the child, then that's what the employee was entitled to take.
Whether or not this agreed upon period of leave was somehow abrogated or superceded by an oral agreement between the employer and employee
after only eight weeks of leave is a question of fact which may require litigation to resolve.
Re: ''legal grounds on return to work timeframe''
The question seems to be "what would the lawsuit say, regardless of the merits?" The employee of course would claim rights under the DC FMLA and perhaps under the federal FMLA as well. She would likely include a claim for wrongful discharge. She might also make a discrimination claim if other, similarly situated employees were allowed to take the 16 weeks in the past, assuming she fits a protected category (race, sex, religion, age, etc.). This would be especially problematic if the company was lax with other employees in terms of knowing exactly when they would return, etc., but decided to be more concrete with the employee in question. (In other words, treated her differently than others had been treated.)
The employee might also throw in other claims such as intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract (based on either alleged oral promises regarding the leave, or perhaps on an employee handbook which promises certain employee "rights.")
Plaintiff's attorneys certainly can be creative when it comes to workplace claims.
Please feel free to call or email should you wish a free consultation to review the matter in detail and decide how to proceed. I can be reached at 301.604.2497 or [email protected].
Good luck.
Jeffrey L. Sheldon
The Sheldon Law Firm
Disclaimer: This posting does not nor is it intended to constitute legal advice. It is not privileged or confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult an attorney for advice specific to your matter.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
