Articles Posted in Employment Law

The United States Congress has declared that the purpose of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), located in Chapter 28 of Title 29 of the U.S. Code , is “to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families, to promote the stability and economic security of families, and to promote national interests in preserving family integrity.” Section 2601(b)(1).

To meet this goal, the FMLA is designed “to entitle employees to take reasonable leave for medical reasons, for the birth or adoption of a child, and for the care of a child, spouse, or parent who has a serious health condition.” 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(b)(2).

An employer who violates the FMLA, may be required to compensate a damaged employee as follows:

• Pay money damages equal to the amount of any wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation denied or lost to such employee by reason of the violation; or
• In a case in which wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation have not been denied or lost to the employee, pay any actual monetary losses sustained by the employee as a direct result of the violation, such as the cost of providing care, up to a sum equal to 12 weeks of wages or salary for the employee;
• Pay the interest on the amount described in the first bullet point calculated at the prevailing rate; and
• Pay an additional amount as liquidated damages equal to the sum of the amount described in first bullet point and the interest described above, except that if an employer who has violated section 2615 of this title proves to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission which violated section 2615 of this title was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation of section 2615 of this title, such court may, in the discretion of the court, reduce the amount of the liability to the amount and interest, respectively; and
• Provide such equitable relief as may be appropriate, including employment, reinstatement, and promotion.

(These elements are contained in Section 2617 of the Act)

The employee has a duty to mitigate damages, in other words, diligently seek new employment. Failure of the employee to do so may preclude an award of back pay for the period during which employment was not sought. See, e.g., Miller v. AT&T Corp., 250 F.3d 820, 838 (4th Cir. 2001).

The award available under the first bullet point is considered compensatory or actual damages. Actual damages differ significantly from the liquidated damages award under the FMLA. Instead of being actual damages, the liquidated damages are a penalty for failing to act in good faith and with reasonable grounds for believing that its act or ommission was not a violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 2615. Importantly, the burden is upon the employer to prove both elements.
Continue reading

After being terminated from a job, an employee may apply for Unemployment Compensation benefits through the State of Florida Agency of Workforce Administration. The employer will be notified of the application and given a chance to respond. An agency administrator will then make a decision based on the paperwork submitted by the two parties. The losing party will be advised of the decision and given the right to appeal. If an appeal is taken, the matter will be set for an evidentiary hearing before an appeals referee.

Hearings are usually conducted by telephone, with the appeals referee contacting the parties from his or her office in Tallahassee, Florida. If the employee will be represented at the hearing by an attorney, the appeals referee should be provided with this information in writing in advance, including where to contact the employee (usually at the attorney’s office).

Importantly, no matter which party is the appellant, i.e., the party challenging the administrative ruling, at the evidentiary hearing the burden of proving misconduct* to deny benefits is always on the employer. Cullen v. Neighborly Senior Services, 775 So.2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Not only is the burden of proof on the employer, but the proof must be by a preponderance of the evidence. Tallahassee Housing Authority v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 483 So.2d 413 (Fla. 1986).
Continue reading

To the surprise of many, Florida employees justly terminated from their jobs may nevertheless be entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits. In other words, although an employee’s actions may justify discharge, the same conduct does not necessarily preclude entitlement to unemployment benefits. Betancourt v. Sun Bank Miami, N.A., 672 So.2d 37 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1996).

For Unemployment Compensation benefits to be denied, an employee’s behavior must rise to the level of “misconduct,” defined as acting willfully, wantonly, or be in substantial disregard of the employer’s interest. See §§ 443.036(29), and 443.101, Fla. Stat.
Continue reading