February 23, 2019

February 22, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 21, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 20, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Working for the Weekend: Denial of Pay Premium Due to FMLA-Related Absences Does Not Violate the FMLA

On January 8, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas issued an opinion and order granting summary judgment to an employer, finding the employer did not violate the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by discontinuing an employee’s shift differential due to absences necessitated by FMLA leave. Flowers v. McCartney, No. 4:17CV00604.

Factual Background

The employer offered nurses who worked weekend shifts a 30 percent pay differential, contingent on signing a “Weekend Option Agreement,” whereby the nurses agreed not to miss more than six weekend shifts. If a nurse missed more than six weekend shifts, he or she no longer qualified for the enhanced pay differential and would not be eligible to participate in the enhanced weekend pay option for one year.

After signing a Weekend Option Agreement, the employee missed more than six weekend shifts due, in part, to taking FMLA leave for her own serious health condition. When she returned to work, the employer discontinued her 30 percent pay differential. However, the employee continued to clock in by affirmatively selecting the 30 percent pay differential. When the employer discovered that the employee was still selecting the pay differential, it terminated her employment for intentional falsification of records. The employee sued, alleging, among other claims, that the employer violated the FMLA.

The Court’s Analysis

In holding that the employer could lawfully discontinue the shift differential, the court relied on 29 C.F.R. § 825.215(c)(2), which states that “if a bonus or other payment is based on the achievement of a specified goal such as hours worked, products sold or perfect attendance, and the employee has not met the goal due to FMLA leave, then the payment may be denied, unless otherwise paid to employees on an equivalent leave status for a reason that does not qualify as FMLA leave.” The court noted that the Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals, as well as district courts in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan, have relied on 29 C.F.R. § 825.215(c)(2) to find that “absences caused by FMLA leave may count as absences with respect to bonuses,” provided non-FMLA leave is treated the same way.

In so holding, the court recognized that 29 C.F.R. § 825.215(c)(1) states that “[a]n employee is entitled to be restored to a position with the same or equivalent pay premiums, such as a shift differential.” The court noted, however, that this regulation applies when the shift differential is not premised upon hours worked or an attendance record. Here, the shift differential was expressly contingent upon the employee’s attendance record. The court held that 29 C.F.R. § 825.215(c)(1) did not preclude the employer’s actions here because the differential was contingent upon attendance records and the employer treated all nurses the same, regardless of whether the leave was for FMLA or non-FMLA purposes.

Key Takeaways

This decision reaffirms decisions reached by other courts by finding that an employer may discontinue a pay differential for FMLA absences, provided the employer acts similarly in response to non-FMLA absences. As with many facets of employment law, consistency is key. Before discontinuing a pay differential for FMLA absences, employers will want to ensure that employees on FMLA leave are treated the same as employees absent for non-FMLA reasons.

© 2019, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Office Managing Shareholder

Stacy M. Bunck is a Shareholder in the firm’s Kansas City Office, with extensive experience in employment-related disputes in various forums throughout the Midwest. She has experience defending allegations of discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and wrongful discharge, and defending FLSA collective actions.

In addition to employment litigation, Ms. Bunck drafts and reviews employee handbooks and policies, provides legal advice regarding various employment-related laws and regulations, litigation avoidance, and employment best practices, and conducts a wide range of workplace...

816 410 2229
John G. Stretton, Ogletree Deakins, noncompete confidentiality lawyer, wrongful termination attorney
Shareholder

John Stretton is a Shareholder in the Stamford office of Ogletree Deakins with nearly twenty years of experience. Clients view John as a resourceful counselor and aggressive litigator who never loses sight of a client's business objectives and need to establish value. In addition to providing proactive counseling and advice, John is frequently sought out to represent clients in discrimination, noncompete, confidentiality, wrongful termination, wage and overtime, breach of contract, unfair trade practices, intellectual property and complex litigation matters in state and federal courts and administrative agencies. John also has extensive experience drafting and negotiating executive employment agreements and agreements concerning data use, privacy and security. John regularly counsels clients on the enforceability of restrictive covenants (non-solicitation, non-competition and confidentiality clauses), in addition to litigating restrictive covenant cases. John was named a New England

203-969-3102