e-Bulletin: FMLA Does Not Require Light Duty
August 13, 2007
An employer has no duty to offer an employee a “light duty” position under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), according to a federal appellate court in a case decided last week. Hendricks v. Compass Group USA Inc., Case No. 06-3637 (7th Cir. Aug. 6, 2007). The FMLA allows qualified employees to take twelve weeks of unpaid medical leave, but does not guarantee light duty accommodations.
In Hendricks, an injured employee accepted a light duty job that paid less than her regular position instead of taking an unpaid medical leave. She sued the employer for her ordinary pay, arguing that the lower pay violated the FMLA. The court disagreed, stating that an employee who voluntarily accepts a light duty position does not have the right under the FMLA to the same pay that she received in her regular job. The FMLA does not require an employer to offer an injured employee light duty, nor does it control what employers pay employees on light duty.
Although “light duty” jobs are not guaranteed by the FMLA, an employee may have a right to a “light duty” job under other laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Under the ADA, if the employee’s “serious health condition” rises to the level of a disability, the employee may have a right to a reasonable accommodation such as a “light duty” position.
Employers should not confuse “light duty” with a “reduced or intermittent leave schedule,” which may be requested under the FMLA. Under a reduced leave schedule, an employee works reduced hours in the same (or an equivalent) position. By contrast, a light duty position usually involves restricted duties or a different job and is not covered by the FMLA.
Offering light duty work may be advantageous to an employer where FMLA leave and worker’s compensation are running concurrently. An employer cannot require an employee to accept a light duty position, but if the employee is certified to return to work and declines light duty, the employee may become disqualified for worker’s compensation benefits.
Taft’s labor and employment attorneys are always available to assist you in sorting out what leave is required by the FMLA, ADA, and other federal and state statutes.
In Hendricks, an injured employee accepted a light duty job that paid less than her regular position instead of taking an unpaid medical leave. She sued the employer for her ordinary pay, arguing that the lower pay violated the FMLA. The court disagreed, stating that an employee who voluntarily accepts a light duty position does not have the right under the FMLA to the same pay that she received in her regular job. The FMLA does not require an employer to offer an injured employee light duty, nor does it control what employers pay employees on light duty.
Although “light duty” jobs are not guaranteed by the FMLA, an employee may have a right to a “light duty” job under other laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Under the ADA, if the employee’s “serious health condition” rises to the level of a disability, the employee may have a right to a reasonable accommodation such as a “light duty” position.
Employers should not confuse “light duty” with a “reduced or intermittent leave schedule,” which may be requested under the FMLA. Under a reduced leave schedule, an employee works reduced hours in the same (or an equivalent) position. By contrast, a light duty position usually involves restricted duties or a different job and is not covered by the FMLA.
Offering light duty work may be advantageous to an employer where FMLA leave and worker’s compensation are running concurrently. An employer cannot require an employee to accept a light duty position, but if the employee is certified to return to work and declines light duty, the employee may become disqualified for worker’s compensation benefits.
Taft’s labor and employment attorneys are always available to assist you in sorting out what leave is required by the FMLA, ADA, and other federal and state statutes.
