NEWS FLASH!

FMLA CLASS ACTION: Attorneys Barbara Edin, working with co-counsel Elwyn Schaefer and Todd McNamara  have a class action certified against the USPS in the Western District for qualified individuals with disabilities when it (1) unreasonably required re-certification of FMLA requests; (2) unreasonably delayed and/or denied FMLA requests or stated they were "not currently approved;" (3) systemically required second and third opinions to support the FMLA requests; and (4) designated disability-related absences as AWOL and/or disciplined employees for disability-related absences when FMLA was disapproved. The Attorneys believe this case will go national. (source: Attorney Barbara Edin)

ALSO the ongoing case below has been settled in favor of the Plaintiffs (workers). It should have a direct bearing on how the USPS handles disability cases: 

USPS Agrees to Pay $61 Million in Disability Discrimination Case - Updated May 31, 2007

Under a class action settlement , the United States Postal Service will pay $61 million to resolve the workplace disability discrimination claims of over 7500 current and former postal workers. Over $53 million will be distributed directly to the workers, the balance represents attorneys fees and expenses of the attorneys who have been litigating the case over the last 14 years. The case, Glover/Albrecht v. Potter, involves denial of promotion and advancement opportunities to U.S. Postal Service employees with workplace disabilities who had been placed in dead end "rehabilitation" positions

 

Follow this link to read MORE!

http://www.lunewsviews.com/class_action.htm

 

 

Common FMLA Violations

 

Common FMLA Violations!

A. FMLA violations cover the entire spectrum of the governing regulation, Title 29 of the CFR, Part 825. However, the most common violations are listed below.

    1. Denial, withdrawal, or "not currently approved", of FMLA because of untimeliness when the FMLA specifically stipulates that the issue of timeliness should be based on circumstances.

    2. Denial, withdrawal, or "not currently approved", FMLA for not abiding to suspense dates that are unreasonable under the circumstances. Although this is also an issue of timeliness, there is no stipulation in the FMLA for suspense dates for different actions. This is a question of what is reasonable, and what is not, given the circumstances.

    3. Denial, withdrawal, or "not currently approved", FMLA recertifications when initiated by the employee when they are not incapacitated or receiving active treatment from a physician, ie., continued office visits for treatments, etc. The FMLA distinctly states that the concept of "continued treatments" include, but is not limited to, prescription medications, supportive devices, ie., Oxygen, etc.

    4. Denial, withdrawal, or "not currently approved", for FMLA because management determines that a "medical condition" is not a serious health condition when they are not qualified to make such a determination. Even if an employer’s health representative made such a determination, there is no provision for such a determination unless it is part of a third (3rd) opinion. An employer’s health representative cannot act on behalf of the employer in a second opinion.

    5. Denial, withdrawal, or "not currently approved", for FMLA recertifications even though management requested such certification, and the denial is without just cause.

    6. Denial of FMLA leave in general when the statutes do not allow a denial under most circumstances.

    7. Withdrawal of FMLA, once certified, when the statutes do not allow a withdrawal of FMLA leave, or FMLA protected status once the certification process is completed, and in favor of the employee.

    8. Harassment by requiring repeated "clarification" requests from the employee’s doctor, at the employee’s time and expense, when such clarification is in direct violation of the FMLA statutes. Management may request the employee’s permission that an employer’s designated health care representative contact the employee’s doctor for the purposes of clarification. The employee is not obligated to grant this permission. If the permission is not granted, the employer has another avenue to address the issue of clarification. The employer cannot repeatedly send the employee back to their doctor to obtain clarification. The employer can send the employee back to the doctor if the certification, or recertification, is not complete, but that is the only instance that the employer can make that request. The Employer may send the individual to a 2nd opinion doctor if an employee refuses to allow the employer to contact his/her personal physician, or if the employer believes the FMLA certification is not correct or fraudulent.

    9. Initiation of disciplinary action for FMLA related illnesses in direct violation of the FMLA statutes, and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

    10. Creation of a hostile work atmosphere by repeated violations of the FMLA, The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and continued harassment of the employee.

    11. Prohibiting the use of FMLA based on denials, and withdrawals of FMLA "protected status", or "not currently approved" designation of FMLA "protected status", when such actions are expressly prohibited. FMLA can be denied, or withdrawn, but only in very specific instances. Management does not have "Carte Blanche" authority to take these types of actions without just cause.

    12. Denial because information is put on the wrong line.

    13. Denial because the employee does not meet the 1250 hour work requirement in the leave year.

    14. Denial for cases of intermittent leave for a serious health condition when the requirement for intermittent leave is met on the first absence utilizing the first certification during any leave year.

    15. Requesting a "Return to Work" packet in certain instances in violation of the Agency's own regulations, DOL Advisory Opinions, and FMLA regulations.

    16. Requesting 2nd opinions for recertifications when such action is specifically prohibited by the FMLA.

    17. New (8/03): Requesting that a person return to work on limited duty when requesting FMLA sick leave for a serious health condition that incapacitates the individual.

    18. New (2/04): Requesting that a person provide a new certification form because the Doctor's office used a "stamped" signature.

    19. New (2/04): Requesting that a person provide a new certification form because the Doctor's signature was illegible.

    FOR MORE FMLA LINKS AND INFORMATION COURTESY OF THE "POSTAL FLAME"

    Please go HERE:

    http://www.postalflame.org/fmla/violations.html