29 C.F.R. § 825.301

Designation of FMLA leave

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

(a) Employer responsibilities. The employer's decision to designate leave as FMLA-qualifying must be based only on information received from the employee or the employee's spokesperson (e.g., if the employee is incapacitated, the employee's spouse, adult child, parent, doctor, etc., may provide notice to the employer of the need to take FMLA leave). In any circumstance where the employer does not have sufficient information about the reason for an employee's use of leave, the employer should inquire further of the employee or the spokesperson to ascertain whether leave is potentially FMLA-qualifying. Once the employer has acquired knowledge that the leave is being taken for a FMLA-qualifying reason, the employer must notify the employee as provided in § 825.300(d).

(b) Employee responsibilities. An employee giving notice of the need for FMLA leave does not need to expressly assert rights under the Act or even mention the FMLA to meet his or her obligation to provide notice, though the employee would need to state a qualifying reason for the needed leave and otherwise satisfy the notice requirements set forth in § 825.302 or § 825.303 depending on whether the need for leave is foreseeable or unforeseeable. An employee giving notice of the need for FMLA leave must explain the reasons for the needed leave so as to allow the employer to determine whether the leave qualifies under the Act. If the employee fails to explain the reasons, leave may be denied. In many cases, in explaining the reasons for a request to use leave, especially when the need for the leave was unexpected or unforeseen, an employee will provide sufficient information for the employer to designate the leave as FMLA leave. An employee using accrued paid leave may in some cases not spontaneously explain the reasons or their plans for using their accrued leave. However, if an employee requesting to use paid leave for a FMLA-qualifying reason does not explain the reason for the leave and the employer denies the employee's request, the employee will need to provide sufficient information to establish a FMLA-qualifying reason for the needed leave so that the employer is aware that the leave may not be denied and may designate that the paid leave be appropriately counted against (substituted for) the employee's FMLA leave entitlement. Similarly, an employee using accrued paid vacation leave who seeks an extension of unpaid leave for a FMLA-qualifying reason will need to state the reason. If this is due to an event which occurred during the period of paid leave, the employer may count the leave used after the FMLA-qualifying reason against the employee's FMLA leave entitlement.

(c) Disputes. If there is a dispute between an employer and an employee as to whether leave qualifies as FMLA leave, it should be resolved through discussions between the employee and the employer. Such discussions and the decision must be documented.

(d) Retroactive designation. If an employer does not designate leave as required by § 825.300, the employer may retroactively designate leave as FMLA leave with appropriate notice to the employee as required by § 825.300 provided that the employer's failure to timely designate leave does not cause harm or injury to the employee. In all cases where leave would qualify for FMLA protections, an employer and an employee can mutually agree that leave be retroactively designated as FMLA leave.

(e) Remedies. If an employer's failure to timely designate leave in accordance with § 825.300 causes the employee to suffer harm, it may constitute an interference with, restraint of, or denial of the exercise of an employee's FMLA rights. An employer may be liable for compensation and benefits lost by reason of the violation, for other actual monetary losses sustained as a direct result of the violation, and for appropriate equitable or other relief, including employment, reinstatement, promotion, or any other relief tailored to the harm suffered. See § 825.400(c). For example, if an employer that was put on notice that an employee needed FMLA leave failed to designate the leave properly, but the employee's own serious health condition prevented him or her from returning to work during that time period regardless of the designation, an employee may not be able to show that the employee suffered harm as a result of the employer's actions. However, if an employee took leave to provide care for a son or daughter with a serious health condition believing it would not count toward his or her FMLA entitlement, and the employee planned to later use that FMLA leave to provide care for a spouse who would need assistance when recovering from surgery planned for a later date, the employee may be able to show that harm has occurred as a result of the employer's failure to designate properly. The employee might establish this by showing that he or she would have arranged for an alternative caregiver for the seriously ill son or daughter if the leave had been designated timely.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 229 cases (47 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Tucker v. Middleburg-Legacy Place, LLC, 539 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2008).
Tucker v. Middleburg-Legacy Place, LLC, 539 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 18× “At no time following the plaintiffs request for [FMLA] leave, or while plaintiff was on her leave, did defendants provide plaintiff with a written notification of expectations and obligations of the plaintiff while on [FMLA] medical leave, and explaining any consequences of a…”
Richard Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3rd Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.301 (a)(1). If the employer does not provide such a handbook, such information must be provided when an employee requests leave.”
Eshbach v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 855 A.2d 943 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). · cites it 10× “Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 825.301 (b)(1), an employer is required to provide an employee seeking leave under the FMLA with written notice detailing the specific expectations and obligations of the employee and explaining any consequences of a failure to meet those obligations.”
Thurston v. Cherry Hill Triplex, 941 F. Supp. 2d 520 (D.N.J. 2008). · cites it 10× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.301 (a)(1). If the employer does not provide such a handbook, such information must be provided when an employee requests leave.”
Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3rd Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “to ascertain whether leave is potentially FMLA- qualifying,” 29 C.F.R. § 825.301 (a), but that duty only arises when the employee provides adequate notice.”
Penny Bachelder Mark Bachelder v. Am. West Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 825.301 (a)(1) (emphasis added).”
Mora v. Chem-Tronics, Inc., 16 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (S.D. Cal. 1998). · cites it 5× “29 C.F.R. §§ 825.301 (b)(1), (c); 825.305(a) (1995).”
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002). · cites it 2× “See also 29 CFR § 825.301 (b)(1) (2001) (notice must also include information about various FMLA rights and obligations).”
Wilson v. Lemington Home for the Aged, 159 F. Supp. 2d 186 (W.D. Pa. 2001). · cites it 7× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.301 (b)(1) (emphasis added).”
Woodman v. Miesel Sysco Food Co., 657 N.W.2d 122 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 10× “" Mora, supra at 1209 , citing 29 C.F.R. 825.301(b)(1) and (c); 29 C.F.R.”
Reed v. Buckeye Fire Equip., 241 F. App'x 917 (4th Cir. 2007). · cites it 6× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.301 (c). If the employer learns of the employee’s need after the leave has commenced, “notice should be mailed to the employee’s address of record.”
Sims v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Dist., 2 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (N.D. Cal. 1998). · cites it 7× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.301 (a)(1). If an employer does not have written policies, manuals etc.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(a) — 2 cases
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(b) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(b)(1) — 2 cases
Woodman v. Miesel Sysco Food Co., 657 N.W.2d 122 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “" Mora, supra at 1209 , citing 29 C.F.R. 825.301(b)(1) and (c); 29 C.F.R.”
Shtab v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 173 F. Supp. 2d 255 (D.N.J. 2001).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(b)(1)(vii) — 1 case
Hofferica v. St. Mary Med. Ctr., 826 F. Supp. 2d 813 (E.D. Pa. 2011).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(b)(l)(i) — 1 case
Cox v. Autozone, Inc., 990 F. Supp. 1369 (M.D. Ala. 1998).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(b)(l)(iv) — 1 case
Alexander v. Ford Motor Co., 204 F.R.D. 314 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(c) — 3 cases
Terry Sanders v. May Dep't Stores Co., 315 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2003).
Spears v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 2 F. Supp. 3d 873 (M.D. La. 2014).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(c)(2)(i) — 1 case
Woodman v. Miesel Sysco Food Co., 657 N.W.2d 122 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “" Mora, supra at 1209 , citing 29 C.F.R. 825.301(b)(1) and (c); 29 C.F.R.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(d) — 2 cases
Rentz v. Hosp., 195 F. Supp. 3d 933 (E.D. Mich. 2016).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(e) — 3 cases
Mathias v. Dolgencorp, LLC (N.D. Ind. 2022).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(f) — 2 cases
Woodman v. Miesel Sysco Food Co., 657 N.W.2d 122 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “" Mora, supra at 1209 , citing 29 C.F.R. 825.301(b)(1) and (c); 29 C.F.R.”
DeLong v. Trujillo, 1 P.3d 195 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
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.