U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 28— FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

29 U.S.C. § 2652

Effect on existing employment benefits

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) More protective

Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to diminish the obligation of an employer to comply with any collective bargaining agreement or any employment benefit program or plan that provides greater family or medical leave rights to employees than the rights established under this Act or any amendment made by this Act.

(b) Less protective

The rights established for employees under this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall not be diminished by any collective bargaining agreement or any employment benefit program or plan.

(Pub. L. 103–3, title IV, § 402, Feb. 5, 1993, 107 Stat. 26.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 103–3, Feb. 5, 1993, 107 Stat. 6, known as the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which enacted this chapter, sections 60m and 60n of Title 2, The Congress, and sections 6381 to 6387 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, amended section 2105 of Title 5, and enacted provisions set out as notes under section 2601 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2601 of this title and Tables.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 6 months after Feb. 5, 1993, see section 405(b)(1) of Pub. L. 103–3, set out as a note under section 2601 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2022 · leading case: Rodney Harrell v. United States Postal Serv., 445 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rodney Harrell v. United States Postal Serv., 445 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. § 2652 . The legislative history to this section adds that “[subsection (a).”
David W. Callison v. City of Philadelphia, 430 F.3d 117 (3rd Cir. 2005). “” 29 U.S.C. § 2652 (b); see also Vanderpool v.”
Marrero v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., 164 F. Supp. 2d 455 (D.N.J. 2001). “” 29 U.S.C. § 2652 (b). Thus, the Camden County Board of Social Services’ sick leave policy, and any collective bargaining agreements to which it is a party, must be considered invalid to the extent that they “diminish” the rights created by the FMLA.”
Joan Sherfel v. Reggie Newson, 768 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “” 29 U.S.C. § 2652 . In consonance with §§ 2652 and 2653, Nationwide adopted a maternity leave policy more generous than the unpaid leave provisions of either the FMLA or the WFMLA.”
Hayduk v. City of Johnstown, 580 F. Supp. 2d 429 (W.D. Pa. 2008). “29 U.S.C. §§ 2652 , 2653; Callison v. City of Philadelphia, 430 F.”
Rodney Harrell v. United States Postal Serv., 415 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “29 U.S.C. § 2652 (emphasis added). The legislative history to this section adds that “[subsection (a) ] specifies that employees must continue to comply with collective bargaining agreements or employment benefit plans providing greater benefits than the act.”
Stimpson v. United Parcel Serv., 351 F. App'x 42 (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. § 2652 (b). The fifteen-day period expired on May 20, 2006, two days before Stimpson submitted his medical information.”
Dotson v. BRP U.S. Inc., 520 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2008). “See 29 U.S.C. § 2652 (a) (providing that the FMLA statute shall not be construed to diminish the obligation of employers to comply with any collective bargaining agreements or employee benefit plans that provide greater family and medical leave rights than those granted by the…”
Santiago v. Dep't of Transp., 50 F. Supp. 3d 136 (D. Conn. 2014). “See 29 U.S.C. § 2652 (b) (“The rights established for employees under this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall not be diminished by any collective bargaining agreement or any employment benefit program or plan.”
Robert Slentz v. City of Repub., Missouri Greg D. Chadwell, Individually & in His Off. Capacity as Interim City Adm'r, 448 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2006). “” 29 U.S.C. § 2652 (a). The canons of statutory construction also state that “ ‘it is well settled that, in interpreting a statute, the court will not look merely to a particular clause in which general words may be used, but will take in connection with it the whole statute .”
Holmes v. E.Spire Commc'ns, Inc., 135 F. Supp. 2d 657 (D. Maryland 2001). “29 U.S.C. § 2652 (a). Section 825.700 pro *667 vides, in relevant part, “[a]n 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.”
Routes v. Henderson, 58 F. Supp. 2d 959 (S.D. Ind. 1999). · cites it 2× “See 29 U.S.C. § 2652 . The statute provides that nothing in the FMLA “shall be construed to diminish the obligation of the employer to comply with any collective bargaining agreement .”
Show all 39 citing cases →
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.