29 C.F.R. § 825.101

Purpose of the Act

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) FMLA is intended to allow employees to balance their work and family life by taking reasonable unpaid leave for medical reasons, for the birth or adoption of a child, for the care of a child, spouse, or parent who has a serious health condition, for the care of a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness, or because of a qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a military member on covered active duty or call to covered active duty status. The Act is intended to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families, to promote the stability and economic security of families, and to promote national interests in preserving family integrity. It was intended that the Act accomplish these purposes in a manner that accommodates the legitimate interests of employers, and in a manner consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in minimizing the potential for employment discrimination on the basis of sex, while promoting equal employment opportunity for men and women.

(b) The FMLA was predicated on two fundamental concerns—the needs of the American workforce, and the development of high-performance organizations. Increasingly, America's children and elderly are dependent upon family members who must spend long hours at work. When a family emergency arises, requiring workers to attend to seriously-ill children or parents, or to newly-born or adopted infants, or even to their own serious illness, workers need reassurance that they will not be asked to choose between continuing their employment, and meeting their personal and family obligations or tending to vital needs at home.

(c) The FMLA is both intended and expected to benefit employers as well as their employees. A direct correlation exists between stability in the family and productivity in the workplace. FMLA will encourage the development of high-performance organizations. When workers can count on durable links to their workplace they are able to make their own full commitments to their jobs. The record of hearings on family and medical leave indicate the powerful productive advantages of stable workplace relationships, and the comparatively small costs of guaranteeing that those relationships will not be dissolved while workers attend to pressing family health obligations or their own serious illness.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 40 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3rd Cir. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3rd Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 2612 (a)(1); see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.101 (b) (―When a family emergency arises, .”

Rogers v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 18 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 48 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” ( 29 C.F.R. § 825.101 (b) (2010).) “The FMLA is both intended and expected to benefit employers as well as their employees.”

Navarro Pomares v. Pfizer Corp., 261 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2001). “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.101 . We do not believe that Congress intended to create so illusory a benefit.”

Samuel J. Cavin v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 346 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2004). “2001) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.101 ). Some courts have struck employer policies that impose more stringent requirements on employees seeking FMLA leave.”

Marrero v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., 164 F. Supp. 2d 455 (D.N.J. 2001). “29 C.F.R. § 825.101 ; Victorelli v. Shadyside Hospital, 128 F.”

Engelhardt v. S.P. Richards Co., 472 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006). “The general purpose of the FMLA is to satisfy the “needs of the American workforce and the development of high-performance organizations,” 29 C.F.R. § 825.101 , by “balancing] the demands of the workplace with the needs of families .”

Garrett v. Univ. of Alabama at Birmingham Bd. of Trs., 193 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 1999). · cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 825.101 (a). The legislative history also indicates that Congress was acting under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.”

Rodney Harrell v. United States Postal Serv., 445 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2006). “§ 2601 (b)(3); see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.101 (b) (“The enactment of the FMLA was predicated on two fundamental concerns — the needs of the American workforce, and the development of high-performance organizations.”

Parker v. Hahnemann Univ. Hosp., 234 F. Supp. 2d 478 (D.N.J. 2002). “1997) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.101 ). The Act is intended “to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families .”

Melanie Satterfield v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 135 F.3d 973 (5th Cir. 1998). “§ 2601 (b)(3); see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.101 (b) (“The enactment of the FMLA was predicated on two fundamental concerns — the needs of the American workforce, and the development of high-performance organizations.”

Thurston v. Cherry Hill Triplex, 941 F. Supp. 2d 520 (D.N.J. 2008). “1997) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.101 ). 4 Employees who take FMLA leave are entitled to certain protections.”

Debbie Stekloff v. St. John's Mercy Health Sys., 218 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2000). “The regulations emphasize the benefits of “stable workplace relationships,” noting that “[w]hen workers can count on durable links to their workplace they are able to make their own full commitments to their jobs,” see 29 C.F.R. § 825.101 (c). We therefore think that a desire to…”

Show all 40 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.