Many employers send Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) paperwork to absent employees via the mail—regular, first class mail—because it is a reasonable, cost-effective way to get the notice to those employees at home. Employers should reconsider this practice following the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 2014 WL 3824309 (3d Cir. August 5, 2014). In Lupyan, the employee claimed her FMLA rights were violated because she never received FMLA paperwork from her employer, despite the employer’s claim that it mailed the paperwork to the employee. According to the court, lacking evidence that the letter was delivered (such as a signature or tracking number), the plaintiff’s denial was sufficient to create an issue of material fact for a jury. In the advent of this decision, employers are encouraged to send FMLA notices to their employees via a method that can be tracked, such as certified mail return receipt requested, hand delivery, or a common carrier that provides delivery confirmation.
Over the years, the Mine Safety Health Administration (MSHA) has tried on two different occasions to overhaul the workplace examination standard at 30 CFR §56/57.18002 by issuing program policy letters. The agency’s primary goal in each of those efforts was to expand the recordkeeping requirement in the regulation to require operators to record conditions identified in the examination. In each case, following industry challenges, the agency was forced to withdraw its new policy and concede that the regulation does not contain such a requirement. These concessions were ultimately based on the recognition that such substantive changes to the regulatory requirements of the standard would necessitate notice and comment rulemaking that afforded stakeholders appropriate input.
In Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc., et al., No. A12-0713 (March 26, 2014), the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that “tortious interference with prospective economic advantage” is a viable claim under Minnesota law. In so holding, the court formally recognized a cause of action, which had existed in Minnesota since at least…..
From defining accommodation provisions for assistive animals to calculating pregnancy disability leave, the matters addressed by California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) regulations are extensive. In this interview, we chat with Patti Perez, Esq., SPHR, president and CEO of Puente Consulting, and member of the DFEH’s Fair Employment and Housing Council. As the leader of a human resources consulting firm, Perez provides training on employment issues and conducts workplace investigations. She also serves as a councilmember on the DFEH’s Fair Employment and Housing Council, drafting and clarifying employment and housing regulations that affect Californians throughout the Golden State.