Ohio Court Dismisses Physical Therapist's Public Policy and Whistleblower Claims Against Non-Profit Employer For Not Alleging Criminal Misconduct.

Late last month, the Montgomery County Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment entered for a non-profit employer of a physical therapist who had claimed that she had been wrongfully discharge in violation of public policy and Ohio’s Whistleblower statute. Duvall v. United Rehabilitation Servs. of Greater Dayton, 2008-Ohio-6231. The court held that the public policy claim failed because the Ohio statute which prohibited professional associations from interfering with the professional judgment of a physical therapist did not apply to non-profit employers. In addition, the court held that the whistleblower statute only applied to allegations of criminal conduct, which the plaintiff had not raised before being terminated.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff provided hydrotherapy to patients in a heated swimming pool. Before being terminated, she had complained to her employer about the temperature of and amount of chlorine in the pool. She also complained “about the fact that URS required her to obtain a supervisor’s approval in order to suspend or discontinue hydrotherapy regimen for patients.” She ultimately was fired for placing “a patient with cerebral palsy in a supine position in the pool despite her knowledge that the patient was afraid of being placed in such a position” in violation of a “policy which prohibited staff from using “idiosyncratic aversives that are frightening to the consumer.’”

In her claim, the plaintiff alleged that the employer violated Ohio Revised Code § 1785.03, which provides in pertinent part that “[n]o professional association formed for the purpose of providing a combination of the professional services *** of *** physical therapists authorized under sections 4755.40 to 4755.56 of the Revised Code ***shall control the professional clinical judgment exercised within accepted and prevailing standards of practice of a licensed *** physical therapist *** rendering care, treatment, or professional advice to an individual patient.” As mentioned, the court rejected this claim because the non-profit employer was not subject to R.C. 1785.02 and no similar statute applied to non-profit organizations. Further, the court likewise rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the employer’s attempt to supervise her violated Ohio Administrative Code. §4755-27-02, which precluded licensed physical therapists from delegating their professional duties and responsibilities. Rather, the court noted that there is no statutory or administrative prohibition on all supervision of physical therapists.

Finally, the court followed prior interpretations of Ohio Revised Code § 4113.52, which prohibits an employer from taking disciplinary or retaliatory action against an employee for reporting criminal violations of certain laws. Because none of the complaints made by the plaintiff about the pool’s temperature or chlorine level involved criminal actions, none of those complaints were protected by the whistleblower statute.

Insomniacs may read the full decision at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/2/2008/2008-ohio-6231.pdf.

Columbus City Council Expands Classes From Discrimination to Include Gender Identity or Expression, Age, Disability, and Military and Familial Status

Last night, the Columbus City Council – with very little advance public notice – expanded the protection of the City laws against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations to include gender identity or expression (i.e., transgendered individuals), age (i.e., over the age of 40), disability (same definition as state and federal law), military status (i.e., activity military duty), sex (male and female, including pregnancy discrimination) and familial status (i.e., having children under the age of 18 or being about to have a child). The new ordinance will become effective immediately upon being signed by Mayor Coleman. Among other things, violations of the Ordinance constitute a first-degree misdemeanor. Before voting, the City Council agenda indicated only that the Council would vote on amending “various sections of Chapter 2331 of the Columbus City Codes, 1959 in order to include additional protected classes of individuals from discriminatory practices that are not currently covered.”

The Council also voted to clarify the meaning of sex discrimination to include “male or female The terms ‘because of sex’ and ‘on the basis of sex’ include pregnancy, any illness arising out of and occurring during the course of a pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” Gender identity or expression is defined to include “having or being perceived as having gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance, expression, or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's actual or perceived sex.”

The City Ordinance covers employers with 4 or more employees and already prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, sexual orientation, color, religion, national origin, and ancestry. The Ordinance, which covers some characteristics not protected under either state or federal law, applies only within the City limits, although it has been cited as grounds for public policy claims.

I can email a copy of the Ordinance upon request.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

EEOC Announces $435K Settlement With Jewelry Store When HR Manager Ignored Sexual Harassment of Three Female Employees.

Last week the EEOC announced that “Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. . . . will pay $485,000 to three female victims of sexual harassment and retaliation to settle a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) [at] (EEOC, et. al. v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. No. CV08-0208 HA, United States District Court of Oregon) [based on], the company’s [alleged] practice of harassing female employees [in] 2004 through 2005 at the Fred Meyer Oregon City store. The EEOC says the sexually hostile work environment started . . . with illegal conduct by the store director and operations manager. The EEOC further asserted in the litigation that the store director and operations manager repeatedly subjected females to graphic sexual discussions, unwanted touching, and requests for sexual favors.”

In addition, the EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that the store “condoned and accepted this sexually harass­ing behavior, and the [EEOC] obtained testimony from the company’s human resources manager who witnessed the harassing conduct on several occasions and simply walked away. According to the EEOC, the same human resources manager failed to take appropriate action against the store director or operations manager. In addition, the EEOC charged that the company retaliated against the female employees when they complained about the sexual harassment.”

“Under a consent decree filed with the federal court, [the store] agreed to pay $485,000 to the three women who came forward during the EEOC’s lawsuit. The company also agreed to provide anti-discrimination training for the owner, managers, supervisors and employees; establish policies and procedures to address sexual harassment issues; provide information to the EEOC concerning any future discrimination complaints; and allow EEOC to monitor the work site for the next two years."

EEOC Regional Attorney William Tamayo explained, “The evidence in this litigation pointed to an alarming lack of recent workplace, anti-discrimination training for the high level managers involved in this case. It is unfortunate that a sophisticated employer like Fred Meyer Stores failed to recognize the importance of such training for its managers.”

Insomniacs can read the EEOC’s full press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/12-11-08a.html.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Cuyahoga Court of Appeals Limits Unfair Competition and Inevitable Disclosure Claims to Duration of Non-Competition Agreement.

In October, the Cuyahoga Court of Appeals ruled on a dispute between coffee barons which arose out of the division of a coffee business in a divorce (in which the wife’s attorney ended up with the business) after the husband began a new coffee venture (at the urgings of his disinherited children) following the expiration of his non-compete agreement. Berardi's Fresh Roast, Inc. v. PMD Enterprises, Inc., 2008-Ohio-5470 (8th Dist. 10/23/08). The courts agreed with the husband that his preparations to begin his new coffee business did not violate the non-competition agreement and he was entitled to engage in fair competition with his former business by promoting his “better” and “less expensive” coffee. The court also ruled that the inevitable disclosure doctrine did not justify relief for the plaintiff company because the confidentiality obligation did not survive the expiration of the non-compete.

Like most businesses, the Company started in happier days when the Executive and his wife began with a small retail store in Cleveland and the Executive’s talent with coffee blends grew the business to a nationwide scope. Fourteen years later, the Executive sold his share in the Company to his wife in a divorce, agreed to a three-year non-competition agreement (containing a perpetual confidentiality clause) and accepted a deferred compensation arrangement. However, after the wife sold the business to her attorney (thus disinheriting their children), the Executive’s sons asked him to re-enter the coffee business, which the Executive agreed to do following the expiration of his non-compete agreement. In the meantime, he lined up the financing and suppliers for his new business, investigated prices and blends, purchased the necessary equipment and signed an office lease. The day after the non-compete agreement expired, the Executive opened his new coffee business and he hired three former employees (who then worked for the Company). One of the Company’s major grocer clients then began buying its coffee from the Executive based on his reputation, his lower price and the taste of his coffee. The Company then filed suit against the Executive, his new company and its former employees.

“In its complaint, [the Company] alleged tortious interference with business, breach of the noncompetition agreement, theft of trade secrets, deceptive trade practices, civil conspiracy, and destruction or conversion of [the Company’s] personal property. The Executive counterclaimed for failure to pay the remainder of his deferred compensation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Executive on all claims and the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment, except that it reversed summary judgment on the conspiracy and on one of the trade secret claims.

Trade Secrets Claim. The Company’s trade secrets consisted of the coffee blend formulas the Executive developed when he owned the Company. “The formulas consist of both the origin of the beans (i.e. Africa, Columbia, Brazil) and percentage used of each type of bean.” Although the Executive’s new company created a sales cheat sheet to indicate which of its blends most closely approximated the Company’s coffee blends, a comparison of the formulas showed that the Executive’s coffee blends used different beans and percentages than the Company’s blends – with one exception. In that case, the Executive admitted that the formulas were identical, although he used a different roasting method which changed the taste. In addition, the Executive claimed that the formula for that blend actually belonged – in whole or in part – to the client who helped develop the blend and was its exclusive buyer. The client supported this contention. However, because the Company pointed out that the client was not even aware of the blend’s formula and had asked for a copy of the formula only a few months before the Executive opened his new coffee business, there was a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the Executive misappropriated this particular trade secret formula.

The courts rejected the remaining trade secret claims involving the confidential client list because the Executive showed that he created his new client list (of names and telephone numbers) from researching the yellow pages, the internet and client referrals and making cold calls, etc. There was no evidence that the Executive’s new client list overlapped identically with the Company’s client list or contained other information unique to the Company’s clients (such as buying habits, prices, etc.).

Conspiracy. Because the court of appeals resurrected this trade secret claim, it felt compelled to resurrect the civil conspiracy claim based on the alleged misappropriation of trade secret. “The elements of civil conspiracy are: (1) a malicious combination of two or more persons, (2) resulting in injury to person or property, and (3) existence of an unlawful act independent of the conspiracy.” In that the Executive is alleged to have conspired with his new employees to misappropriate the single coffee blend, that claim would be sent to a jury to decide its merits.

Inevitable Disclosure. The Company argued that the doctrine of inevitable disclosure should bar the Executive from hiring its former employees since those employees possessed trade secret information and could use it to compete against the Company. The courts indicated that this doctrine is limited to when “a threat of harm warranting injunctive relief exists when an employee with specialized knowledge commences employment with a competitor.” Because those employees were apparently not subject to a non-compete agreement and the Executive’s non-compete agreement had expired, the courts held that the doctrine was inapplicable to this situation.

Unfair Competition. The court rejected the Company’s arguments that the Executive’s preparations in forming his new business constituted a violation of the non-compete and unfair competition because there was no evidence that he was competing, was soliciting customers, was hiring or recruiting employees or advertising before the expiration of the non-compete agreement. The fact that the Executive’s son mentioned his father’s future venture to a Company employee a few months before the business opened was irrelevant.

Similarly, the court rejected the Company’s arguments that the Executive and its former employees tortiously interfered with its contracts with its customers by persuading them to switch suppliers (i.e., to buy from the Executive instead of the Company). Under Ohio law, competitors are permitted to engage in fair competition without actual malice. There was no evidence that any of the customers breached any contracts with the Company when they switched coffee suppliers. Rather, their contracts were terminable at will. Moreover, “informing potential clients that its coffee tastes better and was less expensive, does not constitute ‘actual malice.’"

The courts also rejected for lack of evidence claims that the Executive was providing customers with “cheat sheets” indicating that his coffee was the same as the Company’s or was placing his coffee in grocery bins identified for the Company’s coffee.

Deferred Compensation. The Company argued that it was not required to make the remaining payments of deferred compensation to the Executive because he allegedly breached the non-compete agreement. However, as discussed above, the court rejected all arguments that he breached the non-compete agreement. In any event, the courts found this to be irrelevant because, pursuant to the contractual terms, the deferred compensation obligation was independent of the non-compete obligation. The compensation was due because of past services rendered, not because of the non-compete provision.

Insomniacs may read the full decision at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/8/2008/2008-ohio-5470.pdf.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Many Federal Contractors and Subcontractors Required to Use E-verify Program After January 15, 2009.

[Be advised that this summary was updated on January 12, 2009]

Last month, the federal government published its final regulation which will require many federal contractors and subcontractors to begin using the e-verify program to confirm the employment eligibility of many existing and newly-hired employees as federal service and construction contracts and solicitations are issued or amended after January 15, 2009. In other words, federal agencies are directed to insert a new clause into procurement contracts and solicitations requiring contractors and subcontractors to enroll and utilize the e-verify program. This regulation implements Executive Order 12989 which was amended in June 2008. E-verify was formally known Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program and is operated by the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service in partnership with the Social Security Administration. “Information on registration for and use of the e-verify program can be obtained via the internet at the Department of Homeland Security web site: http://www.dhs.gov/e-verify.”

Not All Contracts Affected. The clause need not be included in all federal contracts (and does not include, for example, commercially off-the-shelf goods, contracts which do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, are only for work outside the United States, are for performance periods of less than 120 days, etc.). Department Heads may waive the e-verify requirements.

Employees Necessarily Affected. If the contractor is affected, all new hires and those current employees (hired after November 6, 1986) who are assigned to the subject federal contract are required to be checked with the e-verify program. However, contractors have the option of verifying the employment eligibility of all existing employees (hired after November 6, 1986) instead of merely those assigned to the contract in case there is difficulty determining which employees are performing such work. In that event, the verification should be implemented within 180 calendar days of enrollment in the e-verify program or of when notification is given to the e-verify operations of the decision to exercise this option.

Not All Employees Necessarily Affected. Instead of verifying the employment eligibility of all new employees, certain employers (i.e., colleges, state and local governments, etc.) may elect to only verify the employment eligibility of new and current employees who are assigned to the federal contract. Contractors are also not required to verify the employment eligibility of current employees (i) who hold an active security clearance of confidential, secret or top secret, (ii) who have been issued HSPD-12 credentials by the Department of Homeland Security; or (iii) whose work normally performs support work (such as indirect or overhead functions) and does not perform any substantial duties applicable to the contract.

Duties. If they have not already enrolled in e-verify, affected employers are required to enroll “as a Federal Contractor in the E-Verify program within 30 calendar days of the contract award . . . Within 90 calendar days of enrollment in the E-Verify program, [the employer must] begin to use E-Verify to initiate verification of employment eligibility of all new hires . . . . who are working in the United States, whether or not assigned to the contract, within 3 business days after the date of hire . . . . For each employee assigned to the contract, [the employer must] initiate verification within 90 calendar days after date of enrollment or within 30 calendar days of the employee’s assignment to the contract, whichever date is later.”

Employers who already enrolled in e-verify at least 90 days before when the contract is awarded must “initiate verification of all new hires . . . . who are working in the United States, whether or not assigned to the contract, within 3 business days after the date of hire. Employers who have not been enrolled in e-verify for at least 90 days before the contract is awarded, must begin using the program within that 90 day period.

Insomniacs can read the full executive order at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080609-2.html or read more about the e-verify program from the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD. The final regulation can be reviewed at 73 Fed. Reg. 67651 (11/14/08) or http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-26904.pdf.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

New FMLA Regulations Change Return-To-Work Certifications and Clarify Rules on Delaying FMLA Leave Pending Certifications.

As mentioned in the summaries from the last two weeks, the DOL issued new FMLA regulations in November which will become effective on January 16, 2009 and will require employers to modify their employment policies, practices employee handbooks. Employers should consult with an employment attorney to revise and/or review their FMLA policies and forms before the new FMLA rules become effective in January. In addition to the new rules mentioned at this site beginning at DOL issues Final FMLA Regulations on New Servicemember and Exigency Leaves and Revises Serious Health Condition Rules, the following rules were also revised:

36. §825.311: Intent to return to work. Although this rule was renumbered, there were no substantive changes from the current regulation at §825.309.

37. §825.312: Fitness for duty Certification. The new rule permits an employer to require a fitness-for-duty certification upon a return to work which certifies that the employee is able to resume work and, if the employer provided a list of the essential job functions to the employee and notified the employee of the requirement in the designation notice, addresses the employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of the job. The employer is also permitted to clarify the certification (as with the prior certification), but may not delay reinstatement during the clarification process. The “simple statement” provision has been deleted, as had the provision requiring an employee to provide a certification at his/her own expense if s/he could not return to work because of a continuation, recurrence or onset of a serious health condition.

Intermittent Absences/Reduced Schedule. In general, employers are not entitled to fitness-for-duty certifications for each such absence or reduced leave schedule. However, when “reasonable safety concerns exist” and the employer so notified the employee in the designation notice, an employer may require such certification no more often than every 30 days. “Reasonable safety concerns means a reasonable belief of significant risk of harm to the individual employee or others” based on the nature, magnitude and likelihood of potential harm that could occur.

ADA. As with the current regulations, the employer may not violate the ADA in the certification process. However, the new rule makes clear that “the FMLA does not prevent the employer from following the procedures for requesting medical information under the ADA” when the ADA is applicable.

38. §825.313 Failure to provide certification. The new rule clarifies that an employer may deny FMLA leave until the employee provides the required certification or recertification. Because the employee typically has 15 days after request to provide the certification or recertification, the period after the 15 days would be unprotected leave. Job restoration may also be denied if the employee fails to provide a fitness-for-duty certification as directed in the prior designation notice.

There are a few additional changes in other regulations (to conform existing regulations to issues already covered in this blog), but they are unlikely to be applicable on a daily basis in most workplaces, so my work here is done summarizing the new FMLA regulations. Of course, readers could always call me for additional details. In any event, insomniacs can read the 201 pages of single-spaced, 9-point font new rules and explanatory comment in full at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-26577.pdf.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

New FMLA Regulations Create New Certification Requirements for Military Leave for Exigencies and Care of Servicemembers.

As mentioned in the summaries from the last two weeks, the DOL issued new FMLA regulations in November which will become effective on January 16, 2009 and will require employers to modify their employment policies, practices employee handbooks. Employers should consult with an employment attorney to revise and/or review their FMLA policies and forms before the new FMLA rules become effective in January. In addition to the new rules mentioned at this site beginning at DOL issues Final FMLA Regulations on New Servicemember and Exigency Leaves and Revises Serious Health Condition Rules, the following rules were also revised:

34. §825.309: Exigency Leave Certification. This new “rule establishes that an employer may require that the employee provide a copy of the covered military member’s active duty orders or other documentation issued by the military which indicates that the covered military member is on active duty (or has been notified of an impending call or order to active duty) in support of a contingency operation, and the dates of the covered military member’s active duty service. [It also] establishes that each time leave is first taken for one of the qualifying exigencies specified in § 825.126, an employer may require an employee to provide a certification that sets forth certain information,” such as a description of and attaching a copy of a meeting announcement, informational briefings, school counselor appointments, and/or invoices for legal services; the dates of the leave, the frequency and duration of reduced schedule or intermittent leave; contact information for meetings with third parties (like school counselors), etc.. It also “describes the optional form (Form WH–384) developed by the Department for employees’ use in obtaining certification that meets the FMLA’s certification requirements. The form is optional for employers and reflects the certification requirements established in § 825.309(b) so that it is easier for an employee to furnish appropriate information to support his or her request for leave because of a qualifying exigency. Form WH–384, or another form containing the same basic information, may be used by the employer; however, no information may be required beyond that specified in this section.”

Verification Process. Finally, the new “rule establishes the verification process for certifications. . . . If an employee submits a complete and sufficient certification to support his or her request for leave because of a qualifying exigency, the employer may not request additional information from the employee. However, if the qualifying exigency involves meeting with a third party, the employer may contact the individual or entity with whom the employee is meeting for purposes of verifying a meeting or appointment schedule and the nature of the meeting between the employee and the specified individual entity. For example, an employer could call a school to confirm that a meeting took place between the employee and the teacher of a child of a covered military member. The section provides that no additional information may be requested by the employer and the employee’s permission is not required in order to verify meetings or appointments with third parties. In addition, the final rule allows an employer to contact an appropriate unit of the Department of Defense to request verification that a covered military member has been called to active duty status (or notified of an impending call to active duty status) in support of a contingency operation. Again, no additional information may be requested by the employer and the employee’s permission is not required. This verification process will protect employees from unnecessary intrusion while still providing a useful tool for employers to verify the certification information given to them.” The final rule does not provide for a re-certification process because the DOL found it unnecessary under the circumstances.

35. §825.310 Servicemember Care Leave Certification. This new “rule provides that when leave is taken to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness, an employer may require an employee to support his or her request for leave with a sufficient certification . . from [an] authorized health care provider” of the covered servicemember. The DOL also developed a new optional form, Form WH–385, which may be used to obtain appropriate information to support an employee’s request for leave to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness.” The new form seeks “information specific to the NDAA requirements for taking leave to care for a covered servicemember, including: (1) Whether the servicemember has incurred a serious injury or illness; (2) whether the injury or illness may render the servicemember medically unfit to perform the duties of the member’s office, grade, rank, or rating; (3) whether the injury or illness was incurred by the member in line of duty on active duty; and (4) whether the servicemember is undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy, is otherwise on outpatient status, or is otherwise on the temporary disability retired list. The . . . optional certification form (WH– 385) for covered servicemember leave includes two additional categories of internal DOD casualty assistance designations used by DOD health care providers ((VSI) Very Seriously Ill/ Injured and (SI) Seriously Ill/Injured) that also meet the standard of a serious injury or illness.”

As with the regular medical leave form, employees may be required to describe “(1) the probable duration of the injury or illness; (2) frequency and duration of leave required; (3) if leave is requested on an intermittent or reduced schedule basis, an estimate of the frequency and duration of such leave; and (4) the family relationship of the eligible employee to the covered servicemember.” Employers are permitted to “use this optional form, or another form containing the same basic information; however, as is the case for any required certification for leave taken to care for a family member with a serious health condition, no information may be required beyond that specified in § 825.310 of the final rule. In all instances, the information on any required certification must relate only to the serious injury or illness for which the current need for leave exists.

In addition, “the rule provides that an employer requiring an employee to submit a certification for leave to care for a covered servicemember must accept as sufficient certification ‘‘invitational travel orders’’ (‘‘ITOs’’) or ‘‘invitational travel authorizations’’ (‘‘ITAs’’) issued by the DOD for [any] family member [or next of kin] to join an injured or ill servicemember at his or her bedside” in lieu of form WH-385 or the employer’s own certification form. [These ITOs or ITAs for medical purposes are not issued by the DOD as a matter of course, but rather only when the servicemember is, at minimum, seriously injured or ill. The Department believes that all family members of a covered servicemember who are eligible to take FMLA leave to care for the covered servicemember should be able to rely on the DOD’s issuance of an ITO or ITA as sufficient certification to support a request for FMLA leave during the effective period of the ITO or ITA, even if the employee is not named on the ITO or ITA.] If an employee will need leave to care for a covered servicemember beyond the expiration date specified in an ITO or an ITA, the final rule provides that an employer may request further certification from the employee.” When an employee is using the ITA or ITO issued to another family member, “an employer may require an employee to provide confirmation of covered family relationship to the seriously injured or ill servicemember pursuant to § 825.122(j) of the FMLA in support of the employee’s use of an ITO or ITA.”

Finally, “the final rule provides that in all instances in which certification is requested, it is the employee’s responsibility to provide the employer with complete and sufficient certification and failure to do so may result in the denial of FMLA leave.” While employers may utilize the same verification and clarification process and deadlines utilized with regular FMLA leave, there is no provision for re-certification or second or third medical opinions with servicemember care leave.

I will eventually complete my summary of the remaining significant changes in the new FMLA regulations on this blog, including at New FMLA Regulations Change Return-To-Work Certifications and Clarify Rules on Delaying FMLA Leave Pending Certifications. Until then, eager beavers and insomniacs can read the 201 pages of single-spaced, 9-point font new rules and explanatory comment in full at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-26577.pdf.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.