DocketNumber: No. CV99-0155933S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5581
Judges: HOLZBERG, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 4/24/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On September 21, 2000, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) the plaintiff did not give adequate or timely notice to the defendant that she was exercising her FMLA rights and (2) the FMLA does not apply because the defendant's leave policies exceed those granted by the FMLA and (3) the acts the plaintiff complains of do not violate the FMLA.2 The plaintiff argues in reply that there are issues of material fact both as to whether the plaintiff was CT Page 5582 restricted in her work functions and that, if she were so restricted, she could nonetheless perform her job functions adequately.3 Both parties submitted memoranda of law and affidavits in support of their positions. The court originally heard argument on the motion on October 16, 2000, then heard additional oral argument on April 2, 2001.
The defendant argues that because the company's leave policy confers rights that exceed those granted by the FMLA, the FMLA should not be construed to provide the plaintiff with more leave than specifically set forth in the statute. The plaintiff argues in reply that the defendant violated the FMLA because the defendant terminated the plaintiff even though the plaintiff was entitled to an additional twelve weeks of unpaid FMLA leave after exhausting the twenty six weeks of paid leave granted pursuant to company policy.
"The FMLA generally requires covered employers to grant employees who have worked for twelve months (or 1250 hours in twelve months) up to twelve weeks' leave during any twelve month period for . . . a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)Hale v. Mann,
The defendant argues that because the plaintiff was afforded more than the twelve weeks of leave required by the FMLA, she was afforded all of the protection that the statute requires. The plaintiff argues in reply that the time she was given pursuant to corporate policy should not be included in the twelve weeks of unpaid leave afforded to her under the FMLA.
Neither the United States Supreme Court, nor the Second Circuit have addressed the issue of whether there is an enforceable right under the FMLA when an employer's leave policy exceeds the benefits conferred by the FMLA. The Eighth Circuit notes, however, that "Congress only intended to mandate a minimum of twelve weeks of leave for employees, it did not CT Page 5583 intend to construct a trap for unwary employers who already provide for twelve weeks of leave for their employees." Ragsdale v. WolverineWorldwide, Inc.,
The legislative history of the statute also indicates that Congress merely intended to establish a baseline of twelve weeks of leave, and does not allow a plaintiff to use the FMLA to extend an employer's leave policy if that policy exceeds the baseline. The stated purpose of the FMLA is "to entitle employees to take reasonable leave for medical reasons . . . in a manner that accommodates the legitimate interests of employers."
In the present case, the plaintiff received approximately six months of leave for her medical condition. It is not disputed that the defendant's medical leave policy of twenty six weeks of paid leave exceeds the twelve weeks of unpaid leave required by the FMLA. Under these circumstances the FMLA was not violated because the defendant's leave policy, which the plaintiff took advantage of, exceeds the baseline granted by the FMLA. Therefore the defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERT L. HOLZBERG, J. CT Page 5584
Monroe Hale v. Louis Mann, Deputy Commissioner, Sued in His ... , 219 F.3d 61 ( 2000 )
Michael Sarno v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives, Inc., ... , 183 F.3d 155 ( 1999 )
tracy-ragsdale-warren-e-dupwe-trustee-in-bankruptcy-for-the-tracy , 218 F.3d 933 ( 2000 )
Philip R. Plant v. Morton International, Inc. , 212 F.3d 929 ( 2000 )