29 C.F.R. § 825.103
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1995–1998 · leading case: O'Hara v. Mt. Vernon Bd. of Educ., 16 F. Supp. 2d 868 (S.D. Ohio 1998).
O'Hara v. Mt. Vernon Bd. of Educ., 16 F. Supp. 2d 868 (S.D. Ohio 1998). “29 C.F.R. § 825.103 (A) 29 . 29 U.S.C. § 2614 (a) requires that an eligible employee who takes parental leave is entitled, on return from such leave, to be restored by the employer to the position of employment held by the employee when the leave commenced or to an equivalent…”
Paasch v. City of Saf. Harbor, 915 F. Supp. 315 (M.D. Fla. 1995). “Although the regulations provide that no further notice is required if the employee was on employer-approved leave at the time the Act became effective, 29 C.F.R. 825.103(b), that is not the situation here.”
Caruthers v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co., 961 F. Supp. 1484 (D. Kan. 1997). “”); 29 C.F.R. § 825.103 (a) (1996) (“An eligible employee’s right to take FMLA leave began on the date that the Act went into effect for the employer.”
Santos v. Shields Health Grp., 996 F. Supp. 87 (D. Mass. 1998). “29 C.F.R. § 825.103 (a). Moreover the FMLA provides that: “Nothing in this Act.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.103(b) — 1 case
Paasch v. City of Saf. Harbor, 915 F. Supp. 315 (M.D. Fla. 1995). “Although the regulations provide that no further notice is required if the employee was on employer-approved leave at the time the Act became effective, 29 C.F.R. 825.103(b), that is not the situation here.”
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.