Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The FMLA also authorizes employees whose rights under the FMLA have been violated to sue their employer for equitable relief and money damages. [3] In enacting the FMLA, Congress invoked two of the powers it possesses under the Constitution. In regulating private employers under the FMLA, it invoked its power under the Commerce Clause.
To be eligible for FMLA leave, an employee must have worked for their employer for at least 12 months, have worked at least 1,250 hours over the past 12 months, and work for an employer with at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius. Several states have passed laws providing additional family and medical leave protections for workers.
Among the "qualifying events" listed in the statute are loss of benefits coverage due to (1) the death of the covered employee; (2) an employee loses eligibility for coverage due to voluntary or involuntary termination or a reduction in hours as a result of resignation, discharge (except for "gross misconduct" [4] [5]), layoff, strike or ...
The enhanced benefits still mean that roughly half of American workers stand to earn more on unemployment than they did at their jobs. What happens to your unemployment benefits if you refuse to ...
The 12 months of employment are not required to be consecutive in order for the employee to qualify for FMLA leave. In general, only employment within seven years is counted unless the break in service is (1) due to an employee's fulfilment of military obligations, or (2) governed by a collective bargaining agreement or other written agreement.
When people "take leave" in this way, they are usually taking days off from their work that have been pre-approved by their employer in their contracts of employment. Labour laws normally mandate that these paid-leave days be compensated at either 100% of normal pay, or at a very high percentage of normal days' pay, such as 75% or 80%.
The company was required by law to make accommodations for him, attorney says.
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the government to demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the law in question was narrowly tailored before it denied unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job requirements substantially conflicted ...