termination FMLA

[cinderedda]

What is the name of your state? Florida My husband has been employed by the same company for approx 12 yrs. In April he sustained an injury (broken elbow) that required emergency surgery to set. This happened on Sunday April 11. On Monday April 12 I called his employer to let them know. The office manager asked if he wanted to be put on FMLA since I informed her that he would probably be off a minimum of 4-6 weeks. His injury was worse than initially thought. We have kept the employer informed. He returns to the doctor on Monday July 12 and at that visit he should be released to return to work. His employer is well aware of this fact. Yesterday he received a phone message to call his employer. He called today and they informed him that his medical insurance has been cancelled and he has been terminated because he has not returned to work. The employer said they were terminating him due to legal reasons. Can they do this?

 

[cbg]

According to my calculations he has been off work for just over 12 weeks. Barring a contract or state law that says otherwise (and Florida does NOT have such a law) an employer is not required to hold a person's job open for any longer than 12 weeks. At the end of 12 weeks, if they have not returned to work, it is perfectly legal for them to terminate his employment.

So yes, they can do that.

 

[cinderedda]

Can they legally cancel your medical coverage before the end of the FMLA period. You are correct the July 5 would of been twelve weeks to the day. His medical insurance was cancelled as of June 30 according to the insurance carrier. They were aware of the fact that he would be returning to work on July 13 if no other problems arose and this did not seem to be a problem. I understand what you are saying that after twelve weeks they are free to do whatever they want. It just seems to me that they should of said if you do not return by July 5 you will be terminated.

 

[cbg]

Some insurance policies, under the terms written into the contract, can only be cancelled on the last day of the month. They would either have to cancel it effective June 30, or leave it active until July 31.

There is no question in my mind that morally, they should have left it active until July 31. However, morally doesn't count here - the question is whether they LEGALLY have to. And to be perfectly honest with you, I'm not 100% certain.

On the one hand, they are required by law to keep benefits intact for employees on FMLA. And he was unquestionably on FMLA until July 5.

On the other hand, employees on FMLA are generally NOT entitled to anything that an employee not on FMLA is entitled to (with the sole exception being job protection, that being what FMLA is for). So IF someone who was on non-FMLA leave or who quit or was fired for non-leave-related reasons on July 5 would also have had their insurance cancelled effective June 30, they may be in the clear.

I lean more towards their having to leave it in force until after the leave is up, but it's a fine line distinction. Beth? IAAL?

It mav prove to be a moot point if you elect COBRA, since COBRA MUST be retroactive to the day the policy was cancelled. You'd almost certainly end up paying for those five days anyway in your first month's payment.

If no one here has a definite answer, you can contact the Federal DOL for verification and to file a complaint of FMLA violation.

Point of clarification: he has NO valid grounds for complaint on the termination. The ONLY complaint he would have is regarding the insurance being termed five days early.

 

[Beth3]

They have to leave the insurance in force for the full 12 weeks of FMLA, provided the employee makes any customary premium contribution they would normally make if they were actively at work (if the employer requires that.)

 

[cinderedda]

The FMLA form states the following by the employer - If you normally pay a portion of the premiums for your health insurance, these payments will continue duing the period of FMLA leave. Arrangements for payment have been discussed with you and it is agreed that you will make premium payments as follows: We have agreed to pay your portion of the premiums while you are on leave. You have agreed to increased weekly payroll deductions ($25.00 more) when you return to work, until you have caught up. On June 7, my husband was released to go back to work light duty - the employer stated that they did not have any light duty for him, so he could not come back until being released on July 12th. This verbal agreement still means nothing. I'm sorry if I am repeating the same questions. I am just shocked that a company you have worked for, for such a long period of time would treat you in this manner.

 

[Beth3]

On June 7, my husband was released to go back to work light duty - the employer stated that they did not have any light duty for him, so he could not come back until being released on July 12th. No laws require an employer to create a light duty position for an employee.