29 C.F.R. § 825.214
Employee right to reinstatement
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 Products, Inc.
Gale Edgar v. Jac Products, Inc. (2006)
“” 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 (2011)
“, 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.214 (b), 825.216(c), (d), 825.”
Lori Hoge, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee (2004)
“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 Division (2005)
“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 Defense Solutions, Inc. (2017)
“We reject Waag’s reliance on 29 C.F.R. § 825.214 to support his reading of § 2614(a)(1).”
Bryson v. Regis Corp. (2007)
“3d at 785 (affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer on the plaintiffs FMLA claim because she was unable to return to work upon the expiration of her leave period); 29 C.F.R. § 825.214 (b) (“If the employee is unable to perform an essential…”
Gary L. Rinehimer v. Cemcolift, Inc (2002)
“See 29 C.F.R. § 825.214 (b) (2001); Reynolds v.”
Linda K. Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc. (2005)
“…has ceased if the employee is unable to fulfill the essential functions of her job. 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…”
Martin v. Brevard County Public Schools (2008)
“§ 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 County Hospital (2005)
“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 Service (2006)
“§ 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. District of Columbia (2016)
“2013) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.214 (b) (“Employee right to reinstatement”)).”
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.214(b) — 3 cases
Tardie v. Rehabilitation (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.