(a) An employer may require an employee on FMLA leave to report periodically on the employee's status and intent to return to work. The employer's policy regarding such reports may not be discriminatory and must take into account all of the relevant facts and circumstances related to the individual employee's leave situation.
(b) If an employee gives unequivocal notice of intent not to return to work, the employer's obligations under FMLA to maintain health benefits (subject to COBRA requirements) and to restore the employee cease. However, these obligations continue if an employee indicates he or she may be unable to return to work but expresses a continuing desire to do so.
(c) It may be necessary for an employee to take more leave than originally anticipated. Conversely, an employee may discover after beginning leave that the circumstances have changed and the amount of leave originally anticipated is no longer necessary. An employee may not be required to take more FMLA leave than necessary to resolve the circumstance that precipitated the need for leave. In both of these situations, the employer may require that the employee provide the employer reasonable notice (i.e., within two business days) of the changed circumstances where foreseeable. The employer may also obtain information on such changed circumstances through requested status reports.
Notes of Decisions
Jackie Killian v. Yorozu Auto. Tennessee, Inc., 454 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 6× “29 C.F.R. § 825.311 provides the following: (a) In the case of foreseeable leave, an employer may delay the taking of FMLA leave to an employee who fails to provide timely certification after being requested by the employer to furnish such certification (i.”
Bass v. Potter, 522 F.3d 1098 (10th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 7× “29 C.F.R. § 825.311 (b). This appeal presents the question of whether a jury could reasonably conclude that Defendant-Appellee United States Postal Service (USPS) “willfully]” violated the FMLA in denying Plaintiff-Appellant Tony Bass’s request for FMLA leave.”
Linda K. Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 427 F.3d 996 (6th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 825.311 (c). The FMLA also does not require the employer to reinstate an employee after her leave has ceased if the employee is unable to fulfill the essential functions of her job.”
Howard v. INOVA Health Care Servs., 302 F. App'x 166 (4th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 5× “This circuit has not yet addressed what constitutes an adequate fitness-for-duty certification under the FMLA, but we need not reach this issue because Inova properly terminated Howard’s employment under 29 C.F.R. § 825.311 . Section 825.311 states: When requested by the…”
Lee Brenneman v. Medcentral Health Sys., 366 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “§ 2613 ; 29 C.F.R. § 825.311 (b). In addition, no extraordinary circumstances existed to render it unfeasible for plaintiff to have given defendant the necessary notice on or before April 2, 2000, the second working day following plaintiffs March 31st absence.”
Verkade v. United States Postal Serv., 378 F. App'x 567 (6th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 3× “305 (c) (2007), and grant the employee no less than fifteen days to provide the certification, 29 C.F.R. § 825.311 (b) (2007). “If the employee never produces the certification, the leave is not FMLA leave.”
Budhun v. Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 765 F.3d 245 (3rd Cir. 2014).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 825.311 (c). 1. Reading argues that Budhun did not really attempt to return to work on August 16, 2010 because shortly after arriving at BHP, she left and sought a note from Dr.”
Gordon v. Gerard Treatment Programs, L.L.C., 390 F. Supp. 2d 826 (N.D. Iowa 2005).
· cites it 11× “Although pertinent regulations expressly authorize an employer to terminate an employee who fails to provide a fitness-for-duty certification at the time that FMLA leave is concluded, 29 C.F.R. § 825.311 (c), the court nevertheless concludes that the viability of a particular…”
Badgett v. Fed. Express Corp., 378 F. Supp. 2d 613 (M.D.N.C. 2005).
· cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 825.311 (b). A reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff submitted her medical certification within a reasonable time under three theories.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.311(a) — 2 cases
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.311(b) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.311(c) — 1 case
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.