29 C.F.R. § 825.216

Limitations on an employee's right to reinstatement

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

(a) An employee has no greater right to reinstatement or to other benefits and conditions of employment than if the employee had been continuously employed during the FMLA leave period. An employer must be able to show that an employee would not otherwise have been employed at the time reinstatement is requested in order to deny restoration to employment. For example:

(1) If an employee is laid off during the course of taking FMLA leave and employment is terminated, the employer's responsibility to continue FMLA leave, maintain group health plan benefits and restore the employee cease at the time the employee is laid off, provided the employer has no continuing obligations under a collective bargaining agreement or otherwise. An employer would have the burden of proving that an employee would have been laid off during the FMLA leave period and, therefore, would not be entitled to restoration. Restoration to a job slated for lay-off when the employee's original position is not would not meet the requirements of an equivalent position.

(2) If a shift has been eliminated, or overtime has been decreased, an employee would not be entitled to return to work that shift or the original overtime hours upon restoration. However, if a position on, for example, a night shift has been filled by another employee, the employee is entitled to return to the same shift on which employed before taking FMLA leave.

(3) If an employee was hired for a specific term or only to perform work on a discrete project, the employer has no obligation to restore the employee if the employment term or project is over and the employer would not otherwise have continued to employ the employee. On the other hand, if an employee was hired to perform work on a contract, and after that contract period the contract was awarded to another contractor, the successor contractor may be required to restore the employee if it is a successor employer. See § 825.107.

(b) In addition to the circumstances explained above, an employer may deny job restoration to salaried eligible employees (key employees, as defined in § 825.217(c)), if such denial is necessary to prevent substantial and grievous economic injury to the operations of the employer; or may delay restoration to an employee who fails to provide a fitness-for-duty certificate to return to work under the conditions described in § 825.312.

(c) 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 or an injury or illness also covered by workers' compensation, the employee has no right to restoration to another position under the FMLA. The employer's obligations may, however, be governed by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended. See § 825.702, state leave laws, or workers' compensation laws.

(d) An employee who fraudulently obtains FMLA leave from an employer is not protected by FMLA's job restoration or maintenance of health benefits provisions.

(e) If the employer has a uniformly-applied policy governing outside or supplemental employment, such a policy may continue to apply to an employee while on FMLA leave. An employer which does not have such a policy may not deny benefits to which an employee is entitled under FMLA on this basis unless the FMLA leave was fraudulently obtained as in paragraph (d) of this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 316 cases (56 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Martin v. Brevard Cnty. Pub. Schs., 543 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008).
Martin v. Brevard Cnty. Pub. Schs., 543 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 8× “§ 2614 (a)(3); 29 C.F.R. § 825.216 (a); Parris v. Miami Herald Publ'g Co.”
Throneberry v. McGehee Desha Cnty. Hosp., 403 F.3d 972 (8th Cir. 2005). · cites it 7× “2002) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.216 (a)), the district court also recognized Throneberry, simply by exercising her FMLA rights, had “no greater rights than an employee who remains at work.”
Smith v. Diffee Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 298 F.3d 955 (10th Cir. 2002). · cites it 5× “3d at 1262 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.216 (a)). We have further explained that “an employee who requests FMLA leave would have no greater protection against his or her employment being terminated for reasons not related to his or her FMLA request than he or she did before…”
Edward Yashenko v. Harrah's Nc Casino Co., LLC, 446 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “Although the statutory language is ambiguous on this point, the Secretary of Labor has promulgated a regulation — 29 C.F.R. § 825.216 (2005) — clearly resolving the question.”
Gary Waag v. Sotera Def. Solutions, Inc., 857 F.3d 179 (4th Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “§ 2614 (a)(3); 29 C.F.R. § 825.216 (a). The regulation provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n employee has no greater right to reinstatement or to other benefits and conditions of employment than if the employee had been continuously employed during the FMLA leave period,”…”
Metzler v. Fed. Home Loan Bank, 464 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “”); 29 C.F.R. § 825.216 (a) (“An employee has no greater right to reinstatement or to other benefits and conditions of employment than if the employee had been continuously employed during the FMLA leave period.”
Carrero-Ojeda v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 755 F.3d 711 (1st Cir. 2014). · cites it 3× “See 29 C.F.R. § 825.216 (a) (“An employee has no greater right .”
Sanders v. City of Newport, 657 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “” Thus, the plain language of the pertinent DOL regulations provides that the burden is on the employer to show that he had a legitimate reason to deny an employee reinstatement.”
Eirik Tillman v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 545 F. App'x 340 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 5× “There, as support for the “unrelated reason” rule, the court quoted from a portion of 29 C.F.R. § 825.216 (a): An employee has no greater right to reinstatement or to other benefits and conditions of employment than if the employee had been continuously employed during the FMLA…”
Demyanovich v. Cadon Plating & Coatings, L.L.C., 747 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.216 (c). Indeed, “[t]he right to reinstatement guaranteed by 29 U.”
Masoud Sharif v. United Airlines, Inc., 841 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2016). “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.216 (d). *207 So it is here.”
Richey v. Autonation, Inc., 341 P.3d 438 (Cal. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 2614 (a)(1) [providing employees with right “to be restored” to same or comparable position]; 29 C.F.R. § 825.216 (a) (2014) [stating that employee has no greater right to reinstatement or to other benefits than if employee had been continuously employed during leave period,…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.216(a) — 6 cases
Woodman v. Miesel Sysco Food Co., 657 N.W.2d 122 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
Pearson v. Unification Theological Seminary, 785 F. Supp. 2d 141 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
Holmes v. Univ. of the Dist. of Columbia, 244 F. Supp. 3d 52 (D.D.C. 2017).
Persky v. Cendant Corp., 547 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D. Conn. 2008).
Robinson v. Baker (E.D. La. 2020).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.216(a)(1) — 2 cases
Perez-Denison v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Nw., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Or. 2012).
Laliberte v. BASF Bioresearch Co., 337 F. Supp. 2d 271 (D. Mass. 2004).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.216(a)(3) — 1 case
Holmes v. Univ. of the Dist. of Columbia, 244 F. Supp. 3d 52 (D.D.C. 2017).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.216(b) — 1 case
Liza Ariza v. Loomis Armored US, L.L.C., 676 F. App'x 224 (5th Cir. 2017).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.216(c) — 2 cases
Clark v. MacOn Cnty. Greyhound Park, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (M.D. Ala. 2010).
Evert v. Ohio State Univ., 2013 Ohio 5942 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2013).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.216(d) — 1 case
Woodman v. Miesel Sysco Food Co., 657 N.W.2d 122 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
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.