Exempt employee on work compensation with modyfied duty.

[ecmst12]

You do not HAVE to apply for FMLA. If you, your medical condition, and your employer all qualify for FMLA protection (and this appears to be the case) then your employer MUST apply it. They don't have to tell you, they don't have to ask you to fill out special paperwork, they very simply have no choice but to provide FMLA protection. Along with the protection for your job, the law also specifically allows the employer to make any time off under it UNPAID. You are taking FMLA leave whether you like it or not. Without FMLA, your employer could simply fire you for not being able to work a full day.

 

[cbg]

xa-xa, it would appear that you do not understand how FMLA works.

The responsibility for applying FMLA is on the employer, not on you. FMLA is not optional. You do not get to choose not to take it.

If you, the employer, and the medical condition all qualify for FMLA, the employer would be in violation of the law if they did not apply it. However, as was already indicated, EVEN AN EXEMPT EMPLOYEE IN CALIFORNIA does not have to be paid for time attributed to FMLA.

So here we have it. If you are not on FMLA for those two hours, your employer is violating two laws. But if you are on FMLA for those two hours, your employer is not violating any laws at all. And it isn't your choice if you are on FMLA or not.

 

[xa-xa]

Here is excerpt from FMLA law from DOL website:

Serious Health Condition:


Illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition involving incapacity or treatment connected with inpatient care in hospital, hospice, or residential medical-care facility; or, continuing treatment by a health care provider involving a period of incapacity: (1) requiring absence of more than 3 consecutive calendar days from work, school, or other activities; (2) due to a chronic or long-term condition for which treatment may be ineffective; (3) absences to receive multiple treatments (including recovery periods) for a condition that if left untreated likely would result in incapacity of more than 3 days; or (4) due to any incapacity related to pregnancy or for prenatal care.

It can not be applied to my case.

How you understand FMLA?
Thanks.

 

[Proserpina]

Here is excerpt from FMLA law from DOL website:

Serious Health Condition:


Illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition involving incapacity or treatment connected with inpatient care in hospital, hospice, or residential medical-care facility; or, continuing treatment by a health care provider involving a period of incapacity: (1) requiring absence of more than 3 consecutive calendar days from work, school, or other activities; (2) due to a chronic or long-term condition for which treatment may be ineffective; (3) absences to receive multiple treatments (including recovery periods) for a condition that if left untreated likely would result in incapacity of more than 3 days; or (4) due to any incapacity related to pregnancy or for prenatal care.

It can not be applied to my case.

How you understand FMLA?
Thanks.

Try this:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/fmla-faqs.htm


And seriously - the folk who have already answered know of what they speak.

 

[cbg]

And long term modified duty is not a chronic or long term condition how?

 

[xa-xa]

Agreed with Proserpina.

The so called "expert": Please do not give any advice if you do not know the subject. Ill advise is worth that no advice.

Thank you Proserpina. I did use the same DOL webside, as your link suggested.

 

[ecmst12]

Pro told you that everyone who has advised you knows what they are talking about. You, on the other hand, do not. But if it will make you feel better, go ahead and file a complaint with the DLSE. They will tell you the same thing that we have, but you will feel better hearing it from the authorities.

 

[LdiJ]

I do have a question though, which goes back to the WC issue. I understand FMLA is non-compensated time off. However I am confused as to how that applies in a WC case? One poster did touch on that, but everyone else has focused on FMLA. Perhaps it would ease the OP's confusion if the correlation between the two were addressed? I understand (I think) that WC benefits are generally less than the normal salary a person would be receiving. I understand that FMLA protects the person's job while needing to miss work. However I don't understand what interplay exists (if any) between the two. I never thought that FMLA had anything to do with WC claims. I always thought that FMLA was for non-WC claim issues.

Could someone clarify?

 

[cbg]

There is nothing in the FMLA statutes, or in the workers comp statutes of any state, that exempts workers comp from FMLA. Or FMLA from workers comp. For some reason, a lot of people assume that if it's workers comp, FMLA does not apply but there's nothing in any law that says so.

What this poster does not seem to understand is that FMLA PROTECTS HIS JOB. Just because it's workers comp doesn't mean that attendance policies don't apply, or that he's entitled on a long-term basis to get 8 hours of pay for 6 hours of work. If he's going to be working only six hours a day on a long term basis, his salary can be adjusted to reflect that. Nowhere is there a CA law that says wage or salary reductions are inherently illegal.

 

[LdiJ]

There is nothing in the FMLA statutes, or in the workers comp statutes of any state, that exempts workers comp from FMLA. Or FMLA from workers comp. For some reason, a lot of people assume that if it's workers comp, FMLA does not apply but there's nothing in any law that says so.

What this poster does not seem to understand is that FMLA PROTECTS HIS JOB. Just because it's workers comp doesn't mean that attendance policies don't apply, or that he's entitled on a long-term basis to get 8 hours of pay for 6 hours of work. If he's going to be working only six hours a day on a long term basis, his salary can be adjusted to reflect that. Nowhere is there a CA law that says wage or salary reductions are inherently illegal.

cbg, I totally respect you but that didn't really answer my questions, and probably won't clear up the OP's confusion. I happen to deal with this sort of thing all of the time when it comes to tax issues, and I am always trying to figure out how to explain complex tax issues to people who are completely unknowledgeable on tax issues. What I am asking you to do is try to explain it in a manner that someone who has no knowledge of employment law can understand.

I will give you an example of what I am asking from my industry point of view...

A married couple for 2013 gets a standard deduction of 12,200. Their house is paid off, they are healthy, their property taxes are reasonable and they have little to itemize. They tithe 8k to their church with the assurance from their church that they can deduct that tithing from their taxable income...however, they cannot because its not enough to top their standard deduction. So the tithing does nothing for them tax wise...but they fight me tooth and nail.

I am asking you to explain the situation to this OP the way that I would have to explain it the same way.

 

[Proserpina]

Agreed with Proserpina.

The so called "expert": Please do not give any advice if you do not know the subject. Ill advise is worth that no advice.

Thank you Proserpina. I did use the same DOL webside, as your link suggested.

Uh...I was gently trying to say "quit arguing with these folk - they know what they're talking about".

How that got mixed up in your head, I do not know.

 

[cbg]

Actually, it did answer your questions.

FMLA applies in each and every situation where the employer has sufficient employees, the employee has worked the requisite time, and the medical condition meets the statutory definition. There is no exemption for workers compensation situations.

What's not to understand about that?

IF the employer has requested medical confirmation, which he MAY do but is not REQUIRED to do, AND IF the employee does not submit it, THEN the employer may retract the FMLA designation but if the employer even suspects that a condition may qualify, they are bound by law to apply FMLA at least conditionally. In a workers comp situation, they obviously have the medical confirmation already.

 

[LdiJ]

Actually, it did answer your questions.

FMLA applies in each and every situation where the employer has sufficient employees, the employee has worked the requisite time, and the medical condition meets the statutory definition. There is no exemption for workers compensation situations.

What's not to understand about that?

IF the employer has requested medical confirmation, which he MAY do but is not REQUIRED to do, AND IF the employee does not submit it, THEN the employer may retract the FMLA designation but if the employer even suspects that a condition may qualify, they are bound by law to apply FMLA at least conditionally. In a workers comp situation, they obviously have the medical confirmation already.

Ok, then I think that the answer to my question is that there is NO interplay between worker's comp and FMLA.

 

[cbg]

There is nothing special about workers comp that differentiates it from any other leave, if that's what you mean. FMLA applies to workers comp situations in exactly the same way FMLA applies to a non-workers comp situation. If you believed that FMLA did not apply to situations that were work related, you were wrong. I don't know how to make any more clear than that.

 

[LdiJ]

There is nothing special about workers comp that differentiates it from any other leave, if that's what you mean. FMLA applies to workers comp situations in exactly the same way FMLA applies to a non-workers comp situation. If you believed that FMLA did not apply to situations that were work related, you were wrong. I don't know how to make any more clear than that.

Yes, that is what I was trying to understand. I do understand it now. I hope that the OP does as well.