Employer Interference with Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") Rights

Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in 1993 in an attempt to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families. When a family emergency arises, the FMLA provides protection to employees by ensuring that employees are not asked to choose between their employment and their family obligations.  At its core, the FMLA  provides job security to employees who must miss work because of their own illnesses, to care for family members who have illnesses, or to care for newborns. 

To be eligible for FMLA leave,  an employee must have worked at least a year and at least 1250 hours in the past year, and work for an employer with at least 50 employees within 75 miles.  The employee can take leave for the following reasons: a) birth or newborn care; b) adoption or foster care; c) family care for a serious health condition; d) care for the employee's own serious health condition; e) qualifying exigency due to family member in the military; or f) care of a covered service member with a serious injury or illness by family or next of kin.

To invoke rights under the FMLA, employees must provide adequate notice to their employer about their need to take leave.  Where leave is unforeseeable, the employee must notify the employer as soon as possible. If the leave is foreseeable, the employee must provide advance notice of leave. An employee, however,  is not required to specifically request FMLA leave to satisfy the notice requirement.   The employee requesting leave does not need to specifically invoke the FMLA, or say "I need to take FMLA leave." It is enough if an employee informs her employer of the need for leave from work for a medical reason or other qualifying reason. Verbal notice is sufficient, and employee need only give enough notice that the employer is aware the leave may be qualifying. 

             

An eligible employee who gives notice of leave cannot have its FMLA rights interfered with, or otherwise be retaliated against for taking FMLA leave. Interference with FMLA rights can take a variety of forms, including: a) discouraging an employee from taking leave; b) refusing to authorize leave for FMLA qualifying reasons; c) manipulation by an employer to avoid FMLA obligations, such as reducing work hours; d) modifying an employee's duties to preclude leave; e) attaching negative consequences to taking FMLA leave in order to dissuade employees from taking leave; f) failing to reinstate an employee to the same or equivalent position following the return from FMLA qualifying leave; g) requiring excessive documentation to substantiate leave; h) mistreating FMLA leave as unauthorized leave; i) harassing an employee because of her leave or its affect on other employees; or  j) engaging in any other conduct that deters an employee from notifying an employer of her need for leave or taking FMLA qualifying leave.

If you have been denied FMLA leave, retaliated against for taking leave, harassed upon your return to work following leave, or terminated after you exercised your right to FMLA, you may have been denied your rights under the FMLA.  If you have questions about your situation, please feel free to contact one of our FMLA lawyers at 801-758-7604 or contact us online at www.utahtriallawyers.net.       

Making a Proper Demand for Payment of Wages Under the Utah Payment of Wages Act and U.C.A. § 34-27-1

A recent decision issued on May 7, 2015 by the Utah Court of Appeals, Francis v. National DME, 2015 UT App 119, underscores the importance of making a proper demand for wages prior to filing a lawsuit and seeking attorneys fees and costs under Utah Code Ann. § 34-27-1 (allowing recovery of attorneys fees to recover wages).

In Francis, National DME terminated Francis's employment after he failed to report to work for three consecutive days. He subsequently filed a wage claim with the Utah Labor Commission. Thereafter, Francis sent written demand for payment of wages he believed were owing, stating in his demand that he was owed more than $15,000 in commissions, among other damages.

At trial, the jury awarded Francis $24,000 in commissions. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeals struck the award, finding that the evidence submitted at trial only supported an award of $9,700 in commissions. Because the award was actually less than what was demanded, Francis was not entitled to attorneys fees and costs. Obviously, this type of result can be devastating to a client and his counsel, and may result in the loss of a significant amount of attorneys' fees that otherwise could have been recovered.

U.C.A. § 34-27-1 provides that whenever an employee brings suit for wages earned and a "demand has been made in writing at least fifteen days before suit for a sum not to exceed the amount so found due, then it shall be the duty of the court before which the case shall be tried to allow to the plaintiff a reasonable attorneys' fee in addition to the amount found due for wages, to be taxed as costs of suit." In interpreting Section 34-27-1, the Court of Appeals held that this provision requires that the demanded amount be more than the judgment obtained by the employee. As a result, Francis was not entitled to an award of attorneys' fees.

Francis deals with a common issue in wages claims - how to demand payment of wages for commissions that are due to an employee. Often, an employee who is paid wages on a commission basis does not know the exact amount of commissions owed to him at the time of his termination because all of the documents and information related to the commissions that are actually owed remain in the employer's possession. For example, commissions are typically owed to employees only after accounts are finalized, monies are paid for a sale or other conditions have been satisfied, such as a chargeback waiting period. In such situations, an employee is well advised to request a sum that is in alignment with what the employee knows is owed, and to include language indicating that if the sum is above such amount, the employee further requests payment of such amounts beyond the demanded amount. Alternatively, the employee may want to attempt to get commission records to establish the amount of commission that are due, and also review the applicable sales commission policy. If those documents are not available, an employee may be wise to send an initial communication about owed wages, followed up with a more specific demand for wages of a specific sum prior to filing a lawsuit.

In addition to the foregoing, there are a number of other strategies that can be used to get a better idea about the actual amount of commissions owed. If you have a claim for wages, or are defending against a wage claim, it's important to immediately attempt to determine the amount of wages at issue before proceeding at your own peril.  Please call one of our Utah employment law attorneys at (801) 758-7604 if you have questions about wage claims, or visit us online at utahtriallawyers.net for more information.