The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was enacted in 1993, a year when the idea of working a corporate job from a living room was rare. When the law was passed, the FMLA didn’t contemplate a remote workforce. Now, and especially post-pandemic, many companies are embracing a fully remote workforce (e.g., sales representatives, healthcare medical device technicians and software engineers). While employees’ needs for a leave of absence have always been around, remote employment and its effects on the applicability of the FMLA requirements has not. For well over two years, many employees have been working from home. Some report to a manager at the headquarters or worksite. Plenty of remote employees, however, report to an individual who also works remotely. The new remote landscape is making what used to be an easy application of FMLA eligibility into a difficult analysis. This article examines the FMLA regulatory framework for remote employees, a recent Texas federal court decision on the issue and the practical options that employers have moving forward.
How Does the FMLA Apply to a Remote Workforce?
By Brian Mead and Dawn Peacock on September 6, 2022
Brian Mead
Brian Mead focuses his practice on various labor and employment issues. He defends employers, before state and federal courts and administrative agencies, in individual and class action litigation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act and other employment laws, including discrimination, wrongful termination, retaliation, and breach of contract claims. Additionally, Brian has experience in prosecuting and defending employee mobility and trade secret litigation cases on an emergency injunctive basis. Brian is skilled in researching multi-jurisdictional employment issues and preparing memoranda explaining the nuances of these issues and providing a recommended course of action. Read Brian Mead's full bio.
Dawn Peacock
Dawn M. Peacock is an employment advisor and litigator. She regularly defends employers in all phases of single-plaintiff and class action litigation in state and federal court. Dawn also regularly handles employment-related agency matters. Her practice focuses on discrimination and retaliation. She has particular experience with claims brought under the ADA, ADEA, Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and data protection laws. Read Dawn Peacock's full bio.
Brian Mead focuses his practice on various labor and employment issues. He defends employers, before state and federal courts and administrative agencies, in individual and class action litigation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act and other employment laws, including discrimination, wrongful termination, retaliation, and breach of contract claims. Additionally, Brian has experience in prosecuting and defending employee mobility and trade secret litigation cases on an emergency injunctive basis. Brian is skilled in researching multi-jurisdictional employment issues and preparing memoranda explaining the nuances of these issues and providing a recommended course of action. Read Brian Mead's full bio.
Dawn Peacock
Dawn M. Peacock is an employment advisor and litigator. She regularly defends employers in all phases of single-plaintiff and class action litigation in state and federal court. Dawn also regularly handles employment-related agency matters. Her practice focuses on discrimination and retaliation. She has particular experience with claims brought under the ADA, ADEA, Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and data protection laws. Read Dawn Peacock's full bio.
Related Posts
BLOG EDITORS
STAY CONNECTED
TOPICS
ARCHIVES
RECENT POSTS
- CMS Issues Guidance on Usage of AI in Making Coverage Determinations
- 2024 Chart of Healthcare Regulations
- Potential Election Year Shakeup: Regulatory Implications of the Congressional Review Act
- Lessons from Ryan S. v. UnitedHealth Group for the 2023 MHPAEA Proposed Rule
- Hospital Settles With OCR for $4.75 Million Over HIPAA Violations