Can an employee take FMLA leave for substance abuse?

The FMLA regulations clearly state that:

“FMLA leave may only be taken for treatment for substance abuse by a health care provider or by a provider of health care services on referral by a health care provider. On the other hand, absence because of the employee’s use of the substance, rather than for treatment, does not qualify for FMLA leave.”

(19 C.F.R. § 825.119(a) (emphasis added).)

So, according to the regulations, an employee is not qualified for FMLA leave if he/she is absent because of current substance abuse right? Not so fast.

In Picarazzi v. John Crane, Inc. (“J. Crane”), the employee, Picarazzi, had a history of alcohol abuse and started to have attendance problems in March 2008. In late March or early April, 2008, the employee informed J. Crane of his alcoholism and his need to get some help. He filled out leave of absence paperwork and went into rehab on April 2, 2008. He turned in a FMLA medical certification from his doctor that said he would be in rehab for approximately 30 days and the anticipated discharge date was May 2, 2008. The HR coordinator for the J. Crane approved the FMLA leave and provided the employee with an FMLA designation form stating that his “12 weeks of job protection expires on June 23, 2008.” The Company also asked that the employee check in every 30 days. 

Continue Reading LAW ALERT – Employers Beware: Your FMLA Paperwork May Grant an Employee Protected Leave When They May Not Be Entitled to It

On July 18, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case California Grocers Association v. City of Los Angeles, in which it upheld the Grocery Worker Retention Ordinance enacted by Los Angeles in December 2005. That ordinance provides that when grocery stores of a specific size are acquired by a new owner, the current employees have certain rights during a 90-day transition period.   These rights include: the seller must prepare a list of non-managerial employees with at least six months employment as of the date of transfer and the buyer of the store must hire from that list during the transition period. Furthermore, the hired employees may only be discharged for cause during the transition period and that, at the end of the transition period, the buyer must prepare a written evaluation of each employee’s performance and “consider” offering all “satisfactory” employees continued employment. There are similar ordinances that have been adopted by several other California municipalities, such as Berkeley (Marina Business Workers), Emeryville (Hotel Workers), and San Jose (Airport Business Workers).

Continue Reading LAW ALERT: California Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Ordinance Regulating Ability to Replace Workers Upon Buying a Business

The California Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 30, 2011, which is viewed by many as hurting business travel to California.  The Court, in Sullivan v. Oracle, unanimously decided that non-resident employees working in California are entitled to overtime payment pursuant to California law.  The Court also gave out-of-state employees four years to sue their employer, holding that overtime work performed by out-of-state employees within California can serve as the basis for a claim under California’s unfair competition law (“UCL”).  (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.)

Continue Reading LAW ALERT: California Supreme Court Decided Employers Must Pay Non-Resident Employees Overtime

Employees in California generally are not eligible for state unemployment benefits if they quit their jobs voluntarily.  However, if the employee resigns for reasons related to childcare, he or she may still qualify for such benefits under the EDD’s regulations.  Childcare-related resignations often stem from changes in the employee’s domestic circumstances; for example, when the employee has separated or divorced from a spouse.  Such resignations may also result from the employee’s daycare provider becoming unable to continue performing such services; for example, if a daycare center closes its doors or if a relative, neighbor, or friend of the employee who watched the child is no longer available to do so.

Continue Reading LAW ALERT: California Employees Who Resign for Childcare Reasons May Still Qualify for State Unemployment Benefits

Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart in its monumental sex discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of all female employees. The court ruled unanimously that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cannot proceed as a class action, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The lawsuit could have involved up to 1.6 million women, with Wal-Mart facing potentially billions of dollars in damages. The decision is a victory for many employers snared in the net of class action litigation by employees who are attempting to support their cases by flimsy evidence.

Continue Reading LAW ALERT: Where Can You Go To Shop And Find Groceries, Clothes, Electronics, And Supreme Court Class Action Victories That Help Employers Nationwide? Wal-Mart!!!