Re: FMLA discrimination

I had to deal with a situation very similar to this only with my own serious medical condition. Sadly, the situation you describe is usually a prelude to firing your husband if the harassment is not successful in getting him to quit. Your husband's employer had already made it clear they are not interested in his further employment with them.

The FMLA is a really great law with the best most well thought out implementing regulations I have ever seen. It is hard for an employer to dodge, which is why they hate it.

The shortcoming of the FMLA is in the damages and remedies it allows. As in my case, an employer may blantantly violate the FMLA knowing there are no penalties provided for the harm they are intentionally inflicting. This is particularly true when it comes to harassment. Unless an employee suffers some loss of wages or other benefit, he or she has essentially no recourse nor protection. The FMLA does not provide for other types of damages which are common in harassment cases such as punitive damages. There is a provision for injunction but I have not come across such cases.

In my case, the FMLA regulations specifically prohibit an employer from assigning an employee to a remote location or on the graveyard shift to discourage taking FMLA leave. That is exactly what my employer did and really didn't deny their reasons for doing so as they wanted to make me an example. Their defense was "No foul, no harm." Yes, it is was a great hardship, but they didn't reduce my pay and reimbursed my mileage.

In your situation, if vacation and holiday time are counted for vacation qualifying purposes for those who did not take FMLA leave, then it should be counted for those who took FMLA. The practical problem is finding a lawyer willing to take a case when that small amount of money is involved.

Also, my experience has been that employee who sue their employer don't remain employees very long afterwards. Of course, this is illegal but is far too often the case.

Name : E-Mail : Subject :
Comments:

: I had to deal with a situation very similar to this only with my own serious medical condition.  Sadly, the situation you describe is usually a prelude to firing your husband if the harassment is not successful in getting him to quit. Your husband's employer had already made it clear they are not interested in his further employment with them.

: The FMLA is a really great law with the best most well thought out implementing regulations I have ever seen.  It is hard for an employer to dodge, which is why they hate it.

: The shortcoming of the FMLA is in the damages and remedies it allows.  As in my case, an employer may blantantly violate the FMLA knowing there are no penalties provided for the harm they are intentionally inflicting.  This is particularly true when it comes to harassment.  Unless an employee suffers some loss of wages or other benefit, he or she has essentially no recourse nor protection.  The FMLA does not provide for other types of damages which are common in harassment cases such as punitive damages.  There is a provision for injunction but I have not come across such cases.

: In my case, the FMLA regulations specifically prohibit an employer from assigning an employee to a remote location or on the graveyard shift to discourage taking FMLA leave.  That is exactly what my employer did and really didn't deny their reasons for doing so as they wanted to make me an example.  Their defense was "No foul, no harm."  Yes, it is was a great hardship, but they didn't reduce my pay and reimbursed my mileage.

: In your situation, if vacation and holiday time are counted for vacation qualifying purposes for those who did not take FMLA leave, then it should be counted for those who took FMLA.  The practical problem is finding a lawyer willing to take a case when that small amount of money is involved.

: Also, my experience has been that employee who sue their employer don't remain employees very long afterwards.  Of course, this is illegal but is far too often the case.