The Blood Bank of Hawaii violated the ADA by giving employees only the leave they were entitled to under the FMLA, the EEOC has claimed in a lawsuit filed last week, according to the Agency’s press release. This is yet another case in which the EEOC has sued an employer over an inflexible, or “rigid,” maximum leave policy. The EEOC’s view is that an employer has an obligation under the ADA to consider granting leave beyond the FMLA as an accommodation to an employee’s disability. The EEOC also claims in the lawsuit that the Blood Bank required employees to return to work without any limitations, according to the press release.
I posted recently about UPS paying $2 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the EEOC with similar allegations.
The EEOC’s lawsuit raises fascinating legal issues, at least to those following the legal developments concerning maximum leave policies. One is the relationship between the ADA and FMLA. Congress passed the FMLA in February 1993. It requires employers with at least 50 employees to provide a maximum of 12 weeks of leave for an employee’s serious health condition. Title I of the ADA went into effect six months before the FMLA was passed. It applies to employers with at least 15 employees. The EEOC’s view is that the maximum leave required by the FMLA is merely the starting point for determining whether an employer has fulfilled its obligation to provide leave under the ADA.
One has to wonder why Congress debated the number of employees an employer must have to be covered by the FMLA, and the maximum number of weeks of leave an employer must provide if the ADA had already required employers with as few as 15 employees to provide an uncapped amount of leave, limited only by the “undue hardship” defense.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, eventually this issue with be on the docket of the Supreme Court of the United States.