C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER V—WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER C—OTHER LAWS › PART 825—THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993 › Subpart B—Employee Leave Entitlements Under the Family and Medical Leave Act

29 C.F.R. § 825.214

Employee right to reinstatement

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

General rule. On return from FMLA leave, an employee is entitled to be returned to the same position the employee held when leave commenced, or to an equivalent position with equivalent benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment. An employee is entitled to such reinstatement even if the employee has been replaced or his or her position has been restructured to accommodate the employee's absence. See also § 825.106(e) for the obligations of joint employers.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 173 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Gale Edgar v. Jac Prods., Inc., 443 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gale Edgar v. Jac Prods., Inc., 443 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2006). · cites it 5× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.214 (b). This court has consequently held that an employer does not violate the FMLA when it fires an employee who is *507 indisputably unable to return to work at the conclusion of the 12-week period of statutory leave.”
Sanders v. City of Newport, 657 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 5× “C. § 2614 (a)(3)(B). The Department of Labor (“DOL”) has interpreted this part of the statute in various regulations that set forth the limitations on an employee’s right to reinstatement.”
Lori Hoge, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee, 384 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “29 C.F.R. § 825.214 . It provides: (a) On return from FMLA leave, an employee is entitled to be returned to the same position the employee held when leave commenced, or to an equivalent position with equivalent benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment.”
Colburn v. Parker Hannifin/Nichols Portland Div., 429 F.3d 325 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “With limited exceptions, see 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.214 (b), .216, upon the employee’s return from a qualified leave, the employer must reinstate the employee to the same position or an alternate position with equivalent pay, benefits, and working conditions, and without loss of…”
Gary Waag v. Sotera Def. Solutions, Inc., 857 F.3d 179 (4th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “We reject Waag’s reliance on 29 C.F.R. § 825.214 to support his reading of § 2614(a)(1).”
Bryson v. Regis Corp., 498 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “214 (b) (“If the employee is unable to perform an essential function of the position because of a physical or mental condition, including the continuation of a serious health condition, the employee has no right to restoration to another position under the FMLA.”
Gary L. Rinehimer v. Cemcolift, Inc, 292 F.3d 375 (3rd Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 825.214 (b) (2001); Reynolds v.”
Linda K. Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 427 F.3d 996 (6th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 825.214 (b). B. Brumbalough’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Brumbalough appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of Came *1002 lot’s liability.”
Martin v. Brevard Cnty. Pub. Schs., 543 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 2614 (a)(1)(A); see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.214 (a). But this right is not absolute; an employer can deny reinstatement "if it can demonstrate that it would have discharged the employee had he not been on FMLA leave.”
Throneberry v. McGehee Desha Cnty. Hosp., 403 F.3d 972 (8th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “216 (a)(1); see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.214 (b) (“If the employee is unable to perform an essential function of the position because of a physical or mental condition, including the continuation of a serious health condition, the employee has no right to restoration to another…”
Rodney Harrell v. United States Postal Serv., 445 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “§ 2614(a)(1); 1 see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.214 (a). To protect these rights, the FMLA declares it “unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided.”
Elzeneiny v. Dist. of Columbia, 195 F. Supp. 3d 207 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 3× “2013) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.214 (b) (“Employee right to reinstatement”)).”
Show all 173 citing cases →
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.214(b) — 3 cases
Tardie v. Rehab. Hosp., 168 F.3d 538 (1st Cir. 1999).
Woodman v. Miesel Sysco Food Co., 657 N.W.2d 122 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
Tardie v. Rehab. (1st Cir. 1999).
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.