The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
November 30, 2015
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, as amended,
for leave who meets the act’s notification and
(FMLA; P.L. 103-3) entitles eligible employees to unpaid,
documentation requirements.
job-protected leave for certain family and medical needs,
with continuation of group health plan benefits. Through
FMLA guarantees unpaid leave, but provides that
the act, Congress sought to strike a balance between
employees may elect to substitute (or employers may
workplace responsibilities and workers’ growing need to
require the substitution of) certain types of accrued paid
take leave for significant family and medical events.
leave for unpaid FMLA leave, within the constraints of
employer policy.
The FMLA applies to covered employers and eligible
employees in the private and public sectors; members of the
FMLA leave is job-protected, which means that—with
Armed Forces are not eligible for FMLA leave.
few exceptions—an employer must return the employee
to the same job or to one that is equivalent in terms of
The Leave Entitlement
pay, benefits, working conditions, and responsibilities to
The FMLA requires that covered employers grant up to 12
the one held prior to taking leave.
workweeks in a 12-month period to eligible employees for
one or more of the following reasons:
Preexisting group health benefits must be maintained
during the employee’s absence under the same
the birth and care of the employee’s newborn child,
conditions that were in place prior to taking leave.
provided that leave is taken within 12 months of the
child’s birth;
Covered Employers
In general, employers engaged in commerce with 50 or
the placement of an adopted or fostered child with the
more employees for 20 weeks in the current or last calendar
employee, provided that leave is taken within 12 months
year are covered by the act.
of the child’s placement;
Employee Eligibility
to care for a spouse, child, or parent with a serious
In general, to be eligible for FMLA leave, an employee
health condition;
must
the employee’s own serious health condition that
work for a covered employer;
renders the employee unable to perform the essential
functions of his or her job; and
have 1,250 hours of service in the 12 months prior to the
start of leave;
qualified military exigencies arising from the fact that
the employee’s spouse, child, or parent is a covered
work at a location where the employer has 50 or more
military member on covered active duty.
employees within 75 miles of the worksite; and
In addition, the act provides up to 26 workweeks of leave in
have worked for the employer for 12 months.
a single 12-month period to eligible employees for the care
of a covered military servicemember (including certain
Employer and Employee Responsibilities
veterans) with a serious injury or illness that was sustained
The act provides rules concerning employer and employee
or aggravated in the line of duty while on active duty, if the
notification requirements, employee responsibilities for
eligible employee is the covered servicemember’s spouse,
scheduling of leave, employer rights to certification, and
child, parent, or next of kin. The combined use of FMLA
employer record-keeping requirements.
leave for all qualifying reasons may not exceed 26
workweeks during this single 12-month period.
Prohibited Acts and Remedies
The FMLA prohibits the interference, restraint, or denial of
Under certain conditions, employees may use FMLA leave
rights provided through the act, and the dismissal of or
intermittently.
discrimination against those who protest a prohibited act.
Employees whose FMLA rights have been violated may be
Characteristics of Leave
awarded monetary damages (e.g., for lost compensation)
FMLA leave has four fundamental characteristics:
and equitable relief, as appropriate (e.g., reinstatement).
It is an entitlement, which means that, unlike other
The FMLA and the U.S. Supreme Court
forms of leave (e.g., vacation days), it must be granted
Since the FMLA’s enactment, the Supreme Court has
to an eligible employee with an FMLA-qualifying need
issued three decisions involving the statute. In the first,
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, the Court considered a
immunity under the 11th Amendment shielded it from such
challenge to a Department of Labor regulation penalizing
lawsuits.
employers for failing to designate leave as FMLA. In
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs and
According to the Court, Congress can eliminate states’ 11th
Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, the Supreme
Amendment immunity when it does so through
Court considered the constitutionality of lawsuits against
“unmistakably clear” statutory language and acts pursuant
state entities under the FMLA. Together, these three cases
to a proper use of its power under Section 5 of the 14th
have shed light on the rights and obligations under the
Amendment (§5). Section 5 allows Congress to enact
FMLA.
appropriate legislation to enforce the substantive guarantees
of the 14th Amendment, including the guarantee of equal
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc. (2002)
protection of the laws.
The defendant in Ragsdale, Wolverine World Wide
(WWW), gave its employees up to seven months of unpaid
The Court noted that the FMLA’s language makes
sick leave. Ragsdale was a WWW employee who was
unmistakably clear that Congress intended to permit FMLA
diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease. During treatment,
suits against states by expressly authorizing them. Thus, the
Ragsdale requested and received 30 weeks of unpaid leave.
outcome of the case depended on whether Congress acted
However, WWW denied her request for additional leave.
pursuant to a valid exercise of its Section 5 power when
When she then failed to return to work, WWW fired her.
authorizing such suits against states. According to the
Court, in passing the FMLA, Congress relied on evidence
Under a then existing regulation, if an employer failed to
of gender-based discrimination by states in family leave
designate an employee’s leave as FMLA leave and/or failed
policies that potentially violated the 14th Amendment. The
to notify the employee of this designation within a
Court thus held that Congress properly authorized suits
reasonable time after the employee made her need for leave
against states for interfering with an employee’s FMLA
known, then the leave did not count toward the employee’s
right to take leave to care for a spouse, son, daughter, or
FMLA leave entitlement. WWW conceded that it never
parent with a serious health condition.
designated any of Ragsdale’s 30 weeks of unpaid leave as
FMLA leave. Thus, according to Ragsdale, the regulation
Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland (2012)
entitled her to 12 weeks of FMLA leave on top of the 30
The plaintiff in Coleman was a state employee who, when
weeks of unpaid leave that she had already taken. When
sick, requested FMLA leave. His employer denied the
WWW did not provide Ragsdale with this additional leave
request, and informed him that he would be fired if he did
and fired her, she sued the company for interfering with her
not resign. Coleman sought money damages, alleging that
FMLA rights.
his employer violated the FMLA. In response, the employer
argued that, as a state entity, the 11th Amendment shielded
The Supreme Court held that the regulation at issue was
it from such lawsuits.
invalid. According to the Court, under the FMLA’s
remedial scheme, an employer is liable to an employee for
Like Hibbs, the Court in Coleman considered whether the
interfering with FMLA rights only when the interference
11th Amendment precluded certain FMLA suits against
prejudices—or injures—the employee. However, the
states. However, in Hibbs, the Court evaluated the
regulation at issue categorically penalized employers by
permissibility of suits against states for violating the FMLA
requiring them to provide 12 additional weeks of FMLA
entitlement to leave to take care of a spouse, son, daughter,
leave for failing to designate leave as FMLA leave, even if
or parent with a serious health condition, and the Coleman
this failure did not injure the employee. The Court therefore
court determined the permissibility of suits against states
found the regulation contrary to the FMLA’s remedial
for violating the FMLA’s self-care provision. The self-care
scheme. After Ragsdale, a number of federal courts of
provision provides leave because an employee’s serious
appeals held that for employees to successfully sue
health condition renders her incapable of performing her
employers for interfering with the exercise of FMLA rights,
job functions.
they must show that they were prejudiced by the
interference.
In Coleman, the Court indicated that there was not
widespread evidence of sex discrimination or gender
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs
stereotyping in states’ administration of self-care leave
(2003)
policies, as there was with family leave policies in Hibbs.
A year after the Supreme Court’s decision in Ragsdale, it
Accordingly, the Court held that Congress did not act
considered whether a state’s sovereign immunity under the
pursuant to proper Section 5 authority when authorizing
11th Amendment precludes certain FMLA suits against it in
suits against states for interfering with self-care rights under
Hibbs. The plaintiff, Hibbs, was a Nevada agency employee
the FMLA. Therefore, states are generally immune from
authorized to take FMLA leave to care for his seriously
such suits under the 11th Amendment.
injured wife. However, during Hibbs’s leave period, his
employer informed him that he had run out of FMLA leave
Sarah A. Donovan, Analyst in Labor Policy
and had to return to work by a specified date. When he
Rodney M. Perry, Legislative Attorney
failed to do so, Hibbs was fired. Hibbs then sued the
company for interfering with his FMLA rights. In response,
IF10329
the agency argued that, as a state entity, its sovereign
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10329 · VERSION 2 · NEW