HR/FMLA question

[klassygoosey]

I'm a regular longtime lurker from even the old days, very occasional poster.  But I am hoping someone can help me. I am currently on a FMLA leave (not working entirely) and will use about 1/2 my FMLA leave time for the year (plus all of my sick/personal time). It's medical/mental health related.  When/if I go to return to work, can I convert the leave to intermittent leave (unpaid) for treatment for job protection (untenured teacher)?

[AdaraMarie]

Yes, I believe you should be able to do this. You might need a new doctor's note and you might get pushback, but I have used intermittent leave before and I see no reason why it couldn't be used for a partial return to work after full leave.

[wildrice]

It depends. FMLA is 12 weeks per year, period. So if you use 6 weeks for being off entirely, you still have 6 weeks you can use intermittently. If you take off a full 12 weeks and then want to use intermittent leave after that, your job would not be protected (though your employer may be ok with it anyway - 12 weeks is the minimum they are required to allow, but some employers will allow more).

FMLA also runs concurrently with paid time off, so if you used 5 weeks of your PTO and you're off six weeks, you're still using six weeks of FMLA.

[sakura]

Yes, my DH is in the same situation right now. His FMLA paperwork has a section about reduced work schedule and his Dr filled it out that he’ll be out for the next month and then part-time for the following month.
Hope you feel better soon!

[wise_rita]

Sept 9, 2021 11:08:54 GMT -5 wildrice said:

FMLA also runs concurrently with paid time off, so if you used 5 weeks of your PTO and you're off six weeks, you're still using six weeks of FMLA.

Hold up, what?! What's the point then? Why my wait to engage FMLA until papa leave is extinguished?

[mcsangel2]

Sept 9, 2021 13:33:04 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

Sept 9, 2021 11:08:54 GMT -5 wildrice said:

FMLA also runs concurrently with paid time off, so if you used 5 weeks of your PTO and you're off six weeks, you're still using six weeks of FMLA.

Hold up, what?! What's the point then? Why my wait to engage FMLA until papa leave is extinguished?

They run concurrently so that your job is protected while you're out for so long. Are you saying your job allows you to run out your pto before starting FMLA? Why were/are you out? For how long? (PTO only not FMLA). I have never heard of a company that allows someone to use up their PTO before filing for FMLA and beginning the FMLA unpaid leave *after* the pto, assuming the reason for taking the PTO in the first place is a family/medical reason.

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2021 13:33:04 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

Sept 9, 2021 11:08:54 GMT -5 wildrice said:

FMLA also runs concurrently with paid time off, so if you used 5 weeks of your PTO and you're off six weeks, you're still using six weeks of FMLA.

Hold up, what?! What's the point then? Why my wait to engage FMLA until papa leave is extinguished?

FMLA is only there to protect your job. It's not actually "leave"

That's why even if you're using PTO, if you filed for FMLA it will run congruently.

[wildrice]

Sept 9, 2021 13:33:04 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

Sept 9, 2021 11:08:54 GMT -5 wildrice said:

FMLA also runs concurrently with paid time off, so if you used 5 weeks of your PTO and you're off six weeks, you're still using six weeks of FMLA.

Hold up, what?! What's the point then? Why my wait to engage FMLA until papa leave is extinguished?

The point is that FMLA is protected leave where you cannot be fired, demoted, lose promotion, passed over for a raise, etc. for taking leave. If by chance you took weeks of personal leave without it being a part of FMLA and your employer fired or laid you off (for example), you'd be out of luck fighting it legally. FMLA is job protection, nothing more. Your company can grant you as much or as little PTO or unpaid time off as they wish, but only 12 weeks of FMLA approved absence offers you that protection.

Assuming you are working for an American company, you should NOT wait to engage FMLA because that leaves you vulnerable to repercussions for taking leave. 

[wise_rita]

Sept 9, 2021 13:38:36 GMT -5 mcsangel2 said:

Sept 9, 2021 13:33:04 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

Hold up, what?! What's the point then? Why my wait to engage FMLA until papa leave is extinguished?

They run concurrently so that your job is protected while you're out for so long. Are you saying your job allows you to run out your pto before starting FMLA? Why were/are you out? For how long? (PTO only not FMLA). I have never heard of a company that allows someone to use up their PTO before filing for FMLA and beginning the FMLA unpaid leave *after* the pto, assuming the reason for taking the PTO in the first place is a family/medical reason.

I've only really worked/been an adult outside of the USA where these things are... infinitely better.

This information genuinely surprises me. Your job could be in danger if you take the PTO you've earned (in wildrice's example)? OMG!

[yaga]

Sept 9, 2021 13:38:36 GMT -5 mcsangel2 said:

Sept 9, 2021 13:33:04 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

Hold up, what?! What's the point then? Why my wait to engage FMLA until papa leave is extinguished?

They run concurrently so that your job is protected while you're out for so long. Are you saying your job allows you to run out your pto before starting FMLA? Why were/are you out? For how long? (PTO only not FMLA). I have never heard of a company that allows someone to use up their PTO before filing for FMLA and beginning the FMLA unpaid leave *after* the pto.

To expand on this, FMLA only protects your job and doesn't mean anything in terms of how you are paid. It doesn't mean paid or unpaid - just that your job will be available when you get back (or an equivalent job) or you can't get fired for missing "too many" days if you are on intermittent FMLA.

[wise_rita]

Sept 9, 2021 13:40:06 GMT -5 wildrice said:

Sept 9, 2021 13:33:04 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

Hold up, what?! What's the point then? Why my wait to engage FMLA until papa leave is extinguished?

The point is that FMLA is protected leave where you cannot be fired, demoted, lose promotion, passed over for a raise, etc. for taking leave. If by chance you took weeks of personal leave without it being a part of FMLA and your employer fired or laid you off (for example), you'd be out of luck fighting it legally. FMLA is job protection, nothing more. Your company can grant you as much or as little PTO or unpaid time off as they wish, but only 12 weeks of FMLA approved absence offers you that protection.

Assuming you are working for an American company, you should NOT wait to engage FMLA because that leaves you vulnerable to repercussions for taking leave. 

This is a good explanation; it makes more sense now (though I'm definitely still scandalized).

Sorry to hijack the thread.

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2021 13:43:00 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

Sept 9, 2021 13:38:36 GMT -5 mcsangel2 said:

They run concurrently so that your job is protected while you're out for so long. Are you saying your job allows you to run out your pto before starting FMLA? Why were/are you out? For how long? (PTO only not FMLA). I have never heard of a company that allows someone to use up their PTO before filing for FMLA and beginning the FMLA unpaid leave *after* the pto, assuming the reason for taking the PTO in the first place is a family/medical reason.

I've only really worked/been an adult outside of the USA where these things are... infinitely better.

This information genuinely surprises me. Your job could be in danger if you take the PTO you've earned (in wildrice's example)? OMG!

Land of the free

[wildrice]

Sept 9, 2021 13:43:00 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

Sept 9, 2021 13:38:36 GMT -5 mcsangel2 said:

They run concurrently so that your job is protected while you're out for so long. Are you saying your job allows you to run out your pto before starting FMLA? Why were/are you out? For how long? (PTO only not FMLA). I have never heard of a company that allows someone to use up their PTO before filing for FMLA and beginning the FMLA unpaid leave *after* the pto, assuming the reason for taking the PTO in the first place is a family/medical reason.

I've only really worked/been an adult outside of the USA where these things are... infinitely better.

This information genuinely surprises me. Your job could be in danger if you take the PTO you've earned (in wildrice's example)? OMG!

Most reasonable companies are not going to fire you for taking a couple of weeks for medical leave, regardless of whether or not you take FMLA. But there would be nothing legally stopping them from doing so, either. More realistically, if there is downsizing happening and they need to get rid of someone, they might look most closely at someone who has taken medical leave. Or if they are looking to promote someone, they may take it into consideration that someone took 4 weeks of sick leave and give the promotion to someone who didn't. Or they could argue "you don't get a raise this year because you were out for 6 weeks and lost productivity during that time". FMLA prevents all of those things from happening. 

There are also plenty of service oriented jobs that would have little tolerance for taking time off at all. I'm thinking places like retail or others that are lower skill and people can be easily replaced AND they need someone there every day to do the work(vs a job like mine where it would be no big deal if I was gone for a bit, my work would just have to wait). If you can't work your cashier job for 4 weeks, they will find someone who can. FMLA prevents that from happening.

Another thing that will probably blow your mind is that you have to work for 12 months (or the equivalent number of hours) to be eligible with an employer. I forget the specifics, but if you are a part time worker, you also have to work a certain number of hours (less than full time hours but more than half time). My poor sister had to pick up extra shifts at her part time job when she was pregnant in order to be eligible to take FMLA when she had the baby instead of just losing her job and hoping that she got rehired when she was ready to come back. So sadly many retail and other service type job workers won't get FMLA anyway because of the length of employment/hours requirement.

The US sucks for employment laws. They heavily favor employers.

[wise_rita]

Sept 9, 2021 13:55:06 GMT -5 wildrice said:

Sept 9, 2021 13:43:00 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

I've only really worked/been an adult outside of the USA where these things are... infinitely better.

This information genuinely surprises me. Your job could be in danger if you take the PTO you've earned (in wildrice's example)? OMG!

Most reasonable companies are not going to fire you for taking a couple of weeks for medical leave, regardless of whether or not you take FMLA. But there would be nothing legally stopping them from doing so, either. More realistically, if there is downsizing happening and they need to get rid of someone, they might look most closely at someone who has taken medical leave. Or if they are looking to promote someone, they may take it into consideration that someone took 4 weeks of sick leave and give the promotion to someone who didn't. Or they could argue "you don't get a raise this year because you were out for 6 weeks and lost productivity during that time". FMLA prevents all of those things from happening. 

There are also plenty of service oriented jobs that would have little tolerance for taking time off at all. I'm thinking places like retail or others that are lower skill and people can be easily replaced AND they need someone there every day to do the work(vs a job like mine where it would be no big deal if I was gone for a bit, my work would just have to wait). If you can't work your cashier job for 4 weeks, they will find someone who can. FMLA prevents that from happening.

Another thing that will probably blow your mind is that you have to work for 12 months (or the equivalent number of hours) to be eligible with an employer. I forget the specifics, but if you are a part time worker, you also have to work a certain number of hours (less than full time hours but more than half time). My poor sister had to pick up extra shifts at her part time job when she was pregnant in order to be eligible to take FMLA when she had the baby instead of just losing her job and hoping that she got rehired when she was ready to come back. So sadly many retail and other service type job workers won't get FMLA anyway because of the length of employment/hours requirement.

The US sucks for employment laws. They heavily favor employers.

FMLA for parental leave is a fresh hell I don't even want to think about.

Also it seems like those super replaceable low wage workers are damn hard to replace these days!

This info has been really enlightening, and depressing.

[af1212]

Sept 9, 2021 13:55:06 GMT -5 wildrice said:

Sept 9, 2021 13:43:00 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

I've only really worked/been an adult outside of the USA where these things are... infinitely better.

This information genuinely surprises me. Your job could be in danger if you take the PTO you've earned (in wildrice's example)? OMG!

Most reasonable companies are not going to fire you for taking a couple of weeks for medical leave, regardless of whether or not you take FMLA. But there would be nothing legally stopping them from doing so, either. More realistically, if there is downsizing happening and they need to get rid of someone, they might look most closely at someone who has taken medical leave. Or if they are looking to promote someone, they may take it into consideration that someone took 4 weeks of sick leave and give the promotion to someone who didn't. Or they could argue "you don't get a raise this year because you were out for 6 weeks and lost productivity during that time". FMLA prevents all of those things from happening. 

There are also plenty of service oriented jobs that would have little tolerance for taking time off at all. I'm thinking places like retail or others that are lower skill and people can be easily replaced AND they need someone there every day to do the work(vs a job like mine where it would be no big deal if I was gone for a bit, my work would just have to wait). If you can't work your cashier job for 4 weeks, they will find someone who can. FMLA prevents that from happening.

Another thing that will probably blow your mind is that you have to work for 12 months (or the equivalent number of hours) to be eligible with an employer. I forget the specifics, but if you are a part time worker, you also have to work a certain number of hours (less than full time hours but more than half time). My poor sister had to pick up extra shifts at her part time job when she was pregnant in order to be eligible to take FMLA when she had the baby instead of just losing her job and hoping that she got rehired when she was ready to come back. So sadly many retail and other service type job workers won't get FMLA anyway because of the length of employment/hours requirement.

The US sucks for employment laws. They heavily favor employers.

You also have to work for an employer with over 50 employees within a 75 mile radius to be eligible for FMLA. So when I was a teacher in a small-ish school that did not apply to me when I gave birth.