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 C—Employee and Employer Rights and Obligations Under the Act

29 C.F.R. § 825.302

Employee notice requirements for foreseeable FMLA leave

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

(a) Timing of notice. An employee must provide the employer at least 30 days advance notice before FMLA leave is to begin if the need for the leave is foreseeable based on an expected birth, placement for adoption or foster care, planned medical treatment for a serious health condition of the employee or of a family member, or the planned medical treatment for a serious injury or illness of a covered servicemember. If 30 days notice is not practicable, such as because of a lack of knowledge of approximately when leave will be required to begin, a change in circumstances, or a medical emergency, notice must be given as soon as practicable. For example, an employee's health condition may require leave to commence earlier than anticipated before the birth of a child. Similarly, little opportunity for notice may be given before placement for adoption. For foreseeable leave due to a qualifying exigency notice must be provided as soon as practicable, regardless of how far in advance such leave is foreseeable. Whether FMLA leave is to be continuous or is to be taken intermittently or on a reduced schedule basis, notice need only be given one time, but the employee shall advise the employer as soon as practicable if dates of scheduled leave change or are extended, or were initially unknown. In those cases where the employee is required to provide at least 30 days notice of foreseeable leave and does not do so, the employee shall explain the reasons why such notice was not practicable upon a request from the employer for such information.

(b) As soon as practicable means as soon as both possible and practical, taking into account all of the facts and circumstances in the individual case. When an employee becomes aware of a need for FMLA leave less than 30 days in advance, it should be practicable for the employee to provide notice of the need for leave either the same day or the next business day. In all cases, however, the determination of when an employee could practicably provide notice must take into account the individual facts and circumstances.

(c) Content of notice. An employee shall provide at least verbal notice sufficient to make the employer aware that the employee needs FMLA-qualifying leave, and the anticipated timing and duration of the leave. Depending on the situation, such information may include that a condition renders the employee unable to perform the functions of the job; that the employee is pregnant or has been hospitalized overnight; whether the employee or the employee's family member is under the continuing care of a health care provider; if the leave is due to a qualifying exigency, that a military member is on covered active duty or call to covered active duty status (or has been notified of an impending call or order to covered active duty), and that the requested leave is for one of the reasons listed in § 825.126(b); if the leave is for a family member, that the condition renders the family member unable to perform daily activities, or that the family member is a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness; and the anticipated duration of the absence, if known. When an employee seeks leave for the first time for a FMLA-qualifying reason, the employee need not expressly assert rights under the FMLA or even mention the FMLA. When an employee seeks leave due to a FMLA-qualifying reason, for which the employer has previously provided FMLA-protected leave, the employee must specifically reference the qualifying reason for leave or the need for FMLA leave. In all cases, the employer should inquire further of the employee if it is necessary to have more information about whether FMLA leave is being sought by the employee, and obtain the necessary details of the leave to be taken. In the case of medical conditions, the employer may find it necessary to inquire further to determine if the leave is because of a serious health condition and may request medical certification to support the need for such leave. See § 825.305. An employer may also request certification to support the need for leave for a qualifying exigency or for military caregiver leave. See §§ 825.309, 825.310). When an employee has been previously certified for leave due to more than one FMLA-qualifying reason, the employer may need to inquire further to determine for which qualifying reason the leave is needed. An employee has an obligation to respond to an employer's questions designed to determine whether an absence is potentially FMLA-qualifying. Failure to respond to reasonable employer inquiries regarding the leave request may result in denial of FMLA protection if the employer is unable to determine whether the leave is FMLA-qualifying.

(d) Complying with employer policy. An employer may require an employee to comply with the employer's usual and customary notice and procedural requirements for requesting leave, absent unusual circumstances. For example, an employer may require that written notice set forth the reasons for the requested leave, the anticipated duration of the leave, and the anticipated start of the leave. An employee also may be required by an employer's policy to contact a specific individual. Unusual circumstances would include situations such as when an employee is unable to comply with the employer's policy that requests for leave should be made by contacting a specific number because on the day the employee needs to provide notice of his or her need for FMLA leave there is no one to answer the call-in number and the voice mail box is full. Where an employee does not comply with the employer's usual notice and procedural requirements, and no unusual circumstances justify the failure to comply, FMLA-protected leave may be delayed or denied. However, FMLA-protected leave may not be delayed or denied where the employer's policy requires notice to be given sooner than set forth in paragraph (a) of this section and the employee provides timely notice as set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.

(e) Scheduling planned medical treatment. When planning medical treatment, the employee must consult with the employer and make a reasonable effort to schedule the treatment so as not to disrupt unduly the employer's operations, subject to the approval of the health care provider. Employees are ordinarily expected to consult with their employers prior to the scheduling of treatment in order to work out a treatment schedule which best suits the needs of both the employer and the employee. For example, if an employee who provides notice of the need to take FMLA leave on an intermittent basis for planned medical treatment neglects to consult with the employer to make a reasonable effort to arrange the schedule of treatments so as not to unduly disrupt the employer's operations, the employer may initiate discussions with the employee and require the employee to attempt to make such arrangements, subject to the approval of the health care provider. See §§ 825.203 and 825.205.

(f) Intermittent leave or leave on a reduced leave schedule must be medically necessary due to a serious health condition or a serious injury or illness. An employee shall advise the employer, upon request, of the reasons why the intermittent/reduced leave schedule is necessary and of the schedule for treatment, if applicable. The employee and employer shall attempt to work out a schedule for such leave that meets the employee's needs without unduly disrupting the employer's operations, subject to the approval of the health care provider.

(g) An employer may waive employees' FMLA notice requirements. See § 825.304.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 447 cases (116 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Michael Woods v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Michael Woods v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2005). · cites it 5× “1999)); 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.302 (c), 825.303(b). Although the employee need not name the statute, Thorson, 205 F.”
Samuel J. Cavin v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 346 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 6× “§ 2612 (e)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 825.302 (b), and for the most part more generous than the FMLA’s requirements for unforeseeable leave, 6 see 29 C.”
Jackie Killian v. Yorozu Auto. Tennessee, Inc., 454 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 825.302 (a). The notice may be verbal, and it “need not expressly assert rights under the FMLA 29 C.”
Hannah P. v. Daniel Coats, 916 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.302 . Proper notice merely “makes the employer aware” that the employee needs potentially FMLA-qualifying leave.”
Dighello v. Thurston Foods, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D. Conn. 2018). · cites it 6× “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.302 (c) ; 825.303(b). Under those regulations, if the illness is foreseeable, the employee must "provide at least verbal notice sufficient to make the employer aware that the employee needs FMLA-qualifying leave, and the anticipated timing and duration of…”
Steve Aubuchon v. Knauf Fiberglass, Gmbh, 359 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “But if, though the need is foreseeable, “30 days notice is not practicable, such as because of a lack of knowledge of approximately when leave will be required to begin, a change in circumstances, or a medical emergency, notice must be given as soon as practicable.”
Phillips v. Mathews, 547 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “" 29 C.F.R. § 825.302 (a). "This ordinarily means at least verbal notification to the employer within one or two business days of when the need for leave becomes known to the employee.”
Eshbach v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 855 A.2d 943 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). · cites it 6× “29 C.F.R. § 825.302 (c). The employee need not expressly assert rights under the FMLA or even mention the FMLA, but may state only that leave is needed for an expected birth or adoption, for example.”
Villegas v. Albertsons, LLC, 96 F. Supp. 3d 624 (W.D. Tex. 2015). · cites it 12× “See generally 29 C.F.R. § 825.302 (setting out -notice requirements).”
Wilson v. Lemington Home for the Aged, 159 F. Supp. 2d 186 (W.D. Pa. 2001). · cites it 8× “29 C.F.R. § 825.302 . If the leave is foreseeable, the employee must provide at least 30 days notice.”
Hayduk v. City of Johnstown, 580 F. Supp. 2d 429 (W.D. Pa. 2008). · cites it 7× “During the leave, the employer “must maintain [the employee’s] coverage under any ‘group health plan’” under the same terms as if the employee had been continuously employed throughout his leave.”
Rodriguez v. Smithfield Packing Co., Inc., 545 F. Supp. 2d 508 (D. Maryland 2008). · cites it 6× “§ 2612 (a)(1)(D), (e); 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.302 -.303. When timely and adequate communication is not given, the protections of the Act do not apply, even if the employee in fact has a serious health condition.”
Show all 447 citing cases →
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(a) — 4 cases
Woodman v. Miesel Sysco Food Co., 657 N.W.2d 122 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
Barbara Horelica v. Fiserv Solutions, Inc., 123 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. App. 2003).
Clark v. Cherryhill Mgmt., Inc., 2018 Ohio 3397 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
Cain v. Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist. (S.D. Miss. 2025).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(a)(2002) — 1 case
Barbara Horelica v. Fiserv Solutions, Inc., 123 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. App. 2003).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(b) — 2 cases
Randolph v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 925 N.E.2d 149 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
Barbara Horelica v. Fiserv Solutions, Inc., 123 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. App. 2003).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c) — 10 cases
Tate v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 268 F.3d 989 (10th Cir. 2001).
Brenda Joyce Lowery v. Ronald Strength, 356 F. App'x 332 (11th Cir. 2009).
Lynn Yuk Chun Wai v. Fed. Express Corp., 461 F. App'x 876 (11th Cir. 2012).
Paasch v. City of Saf. Harbor, 915 F. Supp. 315 (M.D. Fla. 1995).
Mullin v. Rochester Manpower, Inc., 204 F. Supp. 2d 556 (W.D.N.Y. 2002).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(d) — 3 cases
Harville v. Texas A & M Univ., 833 F. Supp. 2d 645 (S.D. Tex. 2011).
Basso v. Potter, 596 F. Supp. 2d 324 (D. Conn. 2009).
Bones v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 223 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (D. Kan. 2002).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(f) — 2 cases
Nadine Ranade v. BT Americas, Inc., 581 F. App'x 182 (4th Cir. 2014).
Taylor v. Ohio Dept. of Jobs & Fam. Servs., 2011 Ohio 881 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2011).
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(g) — 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.