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 G—Effect of Other Laws, Employer Practices, and Collective Bargaining Agreements on Employee Rights Under FMLA

29 C.F.R. § 825.700

Interaction with employer's policies

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

(a) An employer must observe any employment benefit program or plan that provides greater family or medical leave rights to employees than the rights established by the FMLA. Conversely, the rights established by the Act may not be diminished by any employment benefit program or plan. For example, a provision of a CBA which provides for reinstatement to a position that is not equivalent because of seniority (e.g., provides lesser pay) is superseded by FMLA. If an employer provides greater unpaid family leave rights than are afforded by FMLA, the employer is not required to extend additional rights afforded by FMLA, such as maintenance of health benefits (other than through COBRA), to the additional leave period not covered by FMLA.

(b) Nothing in this Act prevents an employer from amending existing leave and employee benefit programs, provided they comply with FMLA. However, nothing in the Act is intended to discourage employers from adopting or retaining more generous leave policies.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 67 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case: Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002). · cites it 6× “One of these regulations, 29 CFR § 825.700 (a) (2001), did support Ragsdale's claim.”
Rasul Freelain v. Vill. of Oak Park, 888 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “And both laws protect individuals from firing or suffering material negative consequences for engaging in protected activity. Yet neither law requires employers to provide a single day of paid leave (though as noted the FMLA does require employers to comply with paid leave…”
Mondaine v. Am. Drug Stores, Inc., 408 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (D. Kan. 2006). · cites it 3× “See 29 C.F.R. § 825.700 (a). In Ragsdale , the Supreme Court struck down Section 825.”
Erdman v. Nationwide Ins., 582 F.3d 500 (3rd Cir. 2009). “110, which removed the remedial eligibility provision in light of the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that a remedial eligibility provision in 29 C.F.R. § 825.700 was invalid for similar reasons.”
Hite v. Biomet, Inc., 53 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (N.D. Ind. 1999). · cites it 4× “To support her theory that she remained on an excused medical leave, the plaintiff refers this court to 29 C.F.R. § 825.700 . This section addresses the interaction of an employer’s internal policies and practices with the employee’s rights under the FMLA.”
Weidner v. Unity Health Plans Ins. Corp., 606 F. Supp. 2d 949 (W.D. Wis. 2009). · cites it 4× “In that case, the Supreme Court abrogated the categorical penalty found in 29 C.F.R. § 825.700 (a) (2001), which provided that paid or unpaid leave taken by an employee did not count against the employee’s FMLA entitlement if the employer did not designate the leave as FMLA…”
Keith W. Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 1998). “AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.”
Downey v. Strain, 510 F.3d 534 (5th Cir. 2007). “1155 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 825.700 (a)). Her employer challenged the validity of the penalty regulation.”
Lubke v. City of Arlington, 455 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2006). “2d 167 (2002), the Supreme Court addressed 29 C.F.R. § 825.700 (a), which required an employer who had not told an employee that her leave was being counted toward the FMLA’s twelve-week limit to toll the limit until the employee was so advised.”
Moticka v. Weck Closure Sys., 183 F. App'x 343 (4th Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “In Ragsdale , the Supreme Court considered 29 C.F.R. § 825.700 (a), the federal regulation setting forth the penalty for an employer’s failure to notify an employee that it has designated a period of leave as FMLA leave.”
Tyma v. Montgomery Cnty., 801 A.2d 148 (Md. 2002). “Similarly, the regulations implementing the FMLA state, “an employer must observe any employment benefit program or plan that provides greater family or medical leave rights to employees than the rights established by the FMLA.”
LaShaunna Banks v. Bosch Rexroth Corp., 610 F. App'x 519 (6th Cir. 2015). “We have summarized Ragsdale’s holding as follows: In Ragsdale the Supreme Court struck down a regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 825.700 (a) (2001), under which an employer that failed to designate an employee’s leave as FMLA-qualifying was prohibited from counting the leave against the…”
Show all 67 citing cases →
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.700(a) — 4 cases
Ragsdale v. Wolverine Worldwide, 218 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 2000).
Summers v. Middleton & Reutlinger, P.S.C., 214 F. Supp. 2d 751 (W.D. Ky. 2002).
Katekovich v. Team Rent a Car of Pittsburgh, Inc., 36 F. App'x 688 (3rd Cir. 2002).
Bernard v. EDS Noland Episcopal Day Sch., 62 F. Supp. 3d 535 (W.D. La. 2014).
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.