Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for DELL,LOUIS

Date/Time of Request: Thursday, October 7, 2010 13:22 Central

Client Identifier: LOUIS DELL
Database: USCA
Citation Text: 29 USCA s 2601
Lines: 350
Documents: 1
Images: 0

The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters, West
and their affiliates.
29 U.S.C.A. § 2601 Page 1

Effective:[See Text Amendments]

United States Code Annotated Currentness

Title 29. Labor
Chapter 28. Family and Medical Leave (Refs & Annos)
§ 2601. Findings and purposes

(a) Findings

Congress finds that--

(1) the number of single-parent households and two-parent households in which the single parent or both parents
work is increasing significantly;

(2) it is important for the development of children and the family unit that fathers and mothers be able to
participate in early childrearing and the care of family members who have serious health conditions;

(3) the lack of employment policies to accommodate working parents can force individuals to choose between job
security and parenting;

(4) there is inadequate job security for employees who have serious health conditions that prevent them from
working for temporary periods;

(5) due to the nature of the roles of men and women in our society, the primary responsibility for family
caretaking often falls on women, and such responsibility affects the working lives of women more than it affects
the working lives of men; and

(6) employment standards that apply to one gender only have serious potential for encouraging employers to
discriminate against employees and applicants for employment who are of that gender.

(b) Purposes

It is the purpose of this Act--

(1) to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families, to promote the stability and economic
security of families, and to promote national interests in preserving family integrity;

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

29 U.S.C.A. § 2601 Page 2

(2) to entitle employees to take reasonable leave for medical reasons, for the birth or adoption of a child, and for
the care of a child, spouse, or parent who has a serious health condition;

(3) to accomplish the purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2) in a manner that accommodates the legitimate
interests of employers;

(4) to accomplish the purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2) in a manner that, consistent with the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, minimizes the potential for employment discrimination on the
basis of sex by ensuring generally that leave is available for eligible medical reasons (including maternity-related
disability) and for compelling family reasons, on a gender-neutral basis; and

(5) to promote the goal of equal employment opportunity for women and men, pursuant to such clause.

CREDIT(S)

(Pub.L. 103-3, § 2, Feb. 5, 1993, 107 Stat. 6.)

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Revision Notes and Legislative Reports

1993 Acts. Senate Report No. 103-3 and Statement by President, see 1993 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 3.

References in Text

This “Act”, referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub.L. 103-3, Feb. 5, 1993, 107 Stat. 6, which, in addition to enacting this
chapter, enacted sections 60m and 60n of Title 2, The Congress, and sections 6381 to 6387 of Title 5, Government
Organization and Employees, and amended section 2105 of Title 5. For complete classification of the Act to the
Code, see Short Title note under section 2601 of this title and Tables.

Effective and Applicability Provisions

1993 Acts. Section 405 of Pub.L. 103-3 provided that:

“(a) Title III.--Title III [subchapter II of this chapter] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Feb.
5, 1993].

“(b) Other titles.--

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

29 U.S.C.A. § 2601 Page 3

“(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), titles I, II, and V and this title [enacting subchapters I and
III of this chapter, sections 60m and 60n of Title 2, The Congress, and sections 6381 to 6387 of Title 5,
Government Organization and Employees, and amending section 2105 of Title 5] shall take effect 6 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act [Feb. 5, 1993].

“(2) Collective bargaining agreements.--In the case of a collective bargaining agreement in effect on the
effective date prescribed by paragraph (1), title I [subchapter I of this chapter] shall apply on the earlier of--

“(A) the date of the termination of such agreement; or

“(B) the date that occurs 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act [Feb. 5, 1993].”

Short Title

2009 Amendments. Pub.L. 111-119, § 1, Dec. 21, 2009, 123 Stat. 3476, provided that: “This Act [amending 29
U.S.C.A. §§ 2611 and 2612] may be cited as the ‘Airline Flight Crew Technical Corrections Act’.”

1993 Acts. Section 1(a) of Pub.L. 103-3 provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter, sections 60m and 60n of
Title 2, The Congress, and sections 6381 to 6387 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, amending
section 2105 of Title 5, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section] may be cited as the ‘Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993’.”

LAW REVIEW COMMENTARIES

Accommodating pregnancy in the workplace. Deborah A. Calloway, 25 Stetson L.Rev. 1 (1995).

Analysis and understanding of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Jane Rigler, 45 Case W.Res.L.Rev.
457 (1995).

Application of federal labor and employment statutes to Native American tribes: Respecting sovereignty and
achieving consistency. Vicki J. Limas, 26 Ariz.St.L.J. 681 (1994).

Balancing work and family: A legal prospective. Elizabeth A. Hall, 32 Hous.Law. 18 (Nov.-Dec. 1994).

Bridging the gap between work and family: Accomplishing the goals of the Family and Medical Leave Act of
1993. Emily A. Hayes, 42 Wm. & Mary L.Rev. 1507 (2001).

Co-employment--a review of customer liability issues in the staffing services industry. Edward A. Lenz, 10
Lab.L.J. 195 (1994).

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

29 U.S.C.A. § 2601 Page 4

Congressional power to regulate sex discrimination: The effect of the Supreme Court's “new federalism”.
Calvin Massey, 55 Me.L.Rev. 63 (2003).

A crackdown on caregiver discrimination. Carmelyn P. Malalis & Linda A. Neilan, 43 Aug. Trial 32 (2007).

DOL's final regulation under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Patricia S. Bellac and Christopher W. Payne,
24 Colo.Law. 1049 (1995).

Employment law. Kevin G. Martin, 46 Syracuse L.Rev. 499 (1995).

Family and Medical Leave Act: Assessing the costs and benefits of use. Holly B. Tompson & Jon M. Werner,
1 Employee Rts. & Employment Pol'y J. 125 (1997).

Family and Medical Leave Act: Employee rights, employer responsibilities. Michael R. Lied and Gerard A.
McInnis, 83 Ill.B.J. 468 (1995).

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993: A great idea but a “Rube Goldberg” solution? 43 Emory L.J. 1351
(1994).

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993: An overview of the law and regulations (Part I). Gregory W.
Guevara, 37 Res Gestae 214 (1993).

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993: An overview of the law and regulations (Part II). Gregory W.
Guevara, 37 Res Gestae 256 (1993).

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993: Survey of the act's history, purposes, provisions, and social
ramifications. 44 Drake L.Rev. 51 (1995).

Federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Kathryn Reid, 9 Me.B.J. 252 (1994).

Individual liability as an “employer” under the Family and Medical Leave Act. David R. Mellon, 22 Am. J.
Trial Advoc. 449 (1998).

Issues surrounding family and medical leave. John P. Furfaro and Maury B. Josephson, 215 N.Y.L.J. 3 (Feb.
2, 1996).

Maternity and parental leave: How employers navigate the shoals. Pamela J. White & Diane Festino Schmitt,
27 Md.B.J. 2 (Nov./Dec. 1994).

Maternity rights in Mexico: With references to the Spanish and American Codes. Roberto Rosas, 6 J. L. &

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

29 U.S.C.A. § 2601 Page 5

Soc. Challenges 151 (2004).

Mental disabilities in the workplace. Louis Pechman, 211 N.Y.L.J. 1 (March 2, 1994).

Myth of unpaid family leave: Can the United States implement a paid leave policy based on the Swedish
model? 17 Comp.Lab.L.J. 373 (1996).

Overview of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Jeffrey J. Fraser, 70 U.Det.Mercy L.Rev. 691 (1993).

Parent company liability for discrimination by subsidiary. Robert P. Lewis, 215 N.Y.L.J. 1 (Feb. 20, 1996).

Parental leave and American exceptionalism. Saul Levmore, 58 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 203 (2007).

Pregnancy discrimination in educational institutions: A proposal to amend the Family Medical Leave Act of
1993. Susan A. Kidwell, 79 Tex. L. Rev. 1287 (2001).

Review of the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993. Thomas J. Flygare and James P. Reidy, 37 N.H.B.J. 34
(June 1996).

“Schleier” leaves taxing questions unanswered. Gary D. Friedman and Harvey P. Sanders, 214 N.Y.L.J. 1
(July 6, 1995).

Sister sovereign states: Preemption and the Second Twentieth Century Revolution in the law of the American
workplace. Henry H. Drummonds, 62 Fordham L.Rev. 469 (1993).

State-legislated family leave: FMLA's panacea or ERISA's scourge? 73 Wash.U.L.Q. 665 (1995).

Supervisors beware: The Family and Medical Leave Act may be hazardous to your health. Comment, 16
Contemp. Health L.&Pol'y 273 (1999).

Taking time off: Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Donald S. Glywasky, 57 Tex.B.J. 492 (1994).

United States' 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act: How does it compare with work leave laws in European
countries? Carol Daugherty Rasnic, 10 Conn.J.Int'l L. 105 (1994).

Unraveling the mysteries of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Gloria L. Johnson and Edward L. Rankin III,
2 Ga.St.B.J. 10 (Aug. 1996).

What does it mean to be a salaried employee? The future of pay-docking. Kimberly A. Pace, 21 J.Legis. 49
(1995).

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

29 U.S.C.A. § 2601 Page 6

Women and the workplace: Accommodating the demands of pregnancy. Samuel Issacharoff and Elyse
Rosenblum, 94 Colum.L.Rev. 2154 (1994).

LIBRARY REFERENCES

American Digest System

Labor and Employment 333.

Key Number System Topic No. 231H.

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Construction with other laws 1

Exclusive nature of provisions 3
Purpose 2
Sovereign immunity 4

1. Construction with other laws

RLA did not preempt customer service agent's claim alleging that airline violated FMLA when it terminated her
employment due to work absences that were statutorily protected; sole issue was whether agent's absences were
protected under FMLA, and agent's right to be absent from work at airline, without reprisal, due to a qualifying
“serious health condition” existed independent of collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Gilmore v. Northwest
Airlines, Inc., D.Minn.2007, 504 F.Supp.2d 649. Labor And Employment 379

Ohio does not recognize a public policy claim for employment termination in violation of the Family and Medical
Leave Act (FMLA) since the Act's statutory remedies adequately protect the public policy in favor of allowing a
qualified individual to take medical leave necessitated by serious health needs. Hicks v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Corp., S.D.Ohio 2005, 457 F.Supp.2d 814. Labor And Employment 379

Confusion regarding former employee's status following her leave necessitated by pregnancy complications and
“negative attitude” of e-mails circulating at employer's corporate headquarters did not give rise to inference of bias,
and thus was not direct evidence of discrimination based on her sex and pregnancy, in violation of Title VII, in light
of reasonable confusion arising out of sequence of events including her resignation followed by her request for
FMLA leave and short-term disability benefits. Hanson v. Sports Authority, W.D.Wis.2003, 256 F.Supp.2d 927.
Civil Rights 1537

Under Minnesota law, terminated employee was precluded from bringing independent claim for negligent infliction
of emotional distress against his former employer, based on alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA), where employee did not suffer defamation or discrimination. Neppl v. Signature Flight Support Corp.,

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

29 U.S.C.A. § 2601 Page 7

D.Minn.2002, 234 F.Supp.2d 1016. Damages 57.57

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) does not foreclose § 1983 suits, and thus § 1983 action is available for
violations of FMLA; FMLA's enforcement provisions are not so comprehensive as to imply exclusivity, and FMLA
does not contain detailed administrative procedure. Knussman v. State of Md., D.Md.1998, 16 F.Supp.2d 601. Civil
Rights 1312

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides comprehensive enforcement scheme which forecloses § 1983
claim to enforce the Act. Jolliffe v. Mitchell, W.D.Va.1997, 971 F.Supp. 1039. Civil Rights 1312

Evidence produced to terminated employee by Puerto Rico Department of Labor (PRDL) was neither privileged nor
irrelevant, and thus, was admissible in action brought by terminated employee against former employer alleging
retaliation in violation of Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), as well as claims under related commonwealth laws;
confidentiality provision of commonwealth's Employment Security Act was not absolute, as Act's language allowed
person as well as its legal representative to request information from PRDL to properly present claim in any
proceeding, Act only required that information requested be related to claim, employee intended to use documents
against employer at trial, Act did not create discovery privilege, and PRDL waived its right to object to subpoena by
producing documents, and there was no indication that PRDL had language barrier or was unfamiliar with federal
litigation. Pagan-Colon v. Walgreens of San Patricio, Inc., D.Puerto Rico 2010, 264 F.R.D. 25. Witnesses 16

2. Purpose

Employee who requests FMLA leave has no greater protection against his or her employment being terminated for
reasons not related to his or her FMLA request than he or she did before submitting the request. Gunnell v. Utah
Valley State College, C.A.10 (Utah) 1998, 152 F.3d 1253. Labor And Employment 368

Balancing family's needs against demands of workplace, Congress designed FMLA to provide security net for
families by setting minimum employment standard for unpaid leave that is required on basis of medical necessity.
Gudenkauf v. Stauffer Communications, Inc., D.Kan.1996, 922 F.Supp. 465. Labor And Employment 333

Legislative history indicates that Congress intended Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to cover serious
illnesses that last more than a few days; minor illnesses, on other hand, should be addressed through employer's sick
leave policy and not through FMLA. Brannon v. OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc., M.D.Tenn.1995, 897 F.Supp. 1028. Labor
And Employment 351(2)

3. Exclusive nature of provisions

Fact that employee, who needed time off for surgery, took four days of sick leave, rather than FMLA leave, did not
automatically render protections of FMLA inapplicable. Darboe v. Staples, Inc., S.D.N.Y.2003, 243 F.Supp.2d 5.
Labor And Employment 374

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

29 U.S.C.A. § 2601 Page 8

Former employee could not assert a common law cause of action for retaliatory discharge based on fact that he was
fired after taking leave from work after death of his mother, where federal law under the Family Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) provided an adequate remedy. Lange v. Showbiz Pizza Time, Inc., D.Kan.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1150. Labor
And Employment 379

Former employee's statutory remedies under the Family and Medical Leave Act and the ADA were exclusive and
barred former employee's claim for wrongful discharge in violation of Oklahoma public policy. McClain v.
Southwest Steel Co., Inc., N.D.Okla.1996, 940 F.Supp. 295. Labor And Employment 379; Civil Rights
1502; Civil Rights 1704

4. Sovereign immunity

As agency of state of Missouri, habilitation center was immune under Eleventh Amendment from employee's FMLA
claim. Miles v. Bellfontaine Habilitation Center, C.A.8 (Mo.) 2007, 481 F.3d 1106, on remand 2007 WL 4365742.
Federal Courts 269

Indian tribe was immune from casino employee's damages suit alleging violation of FMLA. Chayoon v. Chao,
C.A.2 (Conn.) 2004, 355 F.3d 141, certiorari denied 125 S.Ct. 429, 543 U.S. 966, 160 L.Ed.2d 336. Indians 342

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provisions requiring broad class of employers, including States, to provide
employees with 12 weeks of leave due to serious health condition, and permitting employees to sue in federal court
for violations of the Act, did not represent valid exercise of Congress's power to enforce Fourteenth Amendment's
equal protection clause, and, thus, FMLA did not validly abrogate States' Eleventh Amendment immunity; Congress
made no findings as to existence of sick leave practices in public employment that amounted to intentional gender
discrimination in violation of equal protection, and FMLA provisions were not congruent or proportional. Chittister
v. Department of Community and Economic Development, C.A.3 (Pa.) 2000, 226 F.3d 223. Constitutional Law
4872; Federal Courts 265

Officials in the Lieutenant Governor's Office on Aging (LGOA) were entitled to sovereign immunity under the
Eleventh Amendment from employee's Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claims against officials in their
official capacity and in their individual capacities as supervisors with a public agency, alleging officials retaliated
against her for taking self-care leave, where Congress had not abrogated states' immunity as to FMLA self-care
provisions. Brown v. Lieutenant Governor's Office on Aging, D.S.C.2010, 697 F.Supp.2d 632. Federal Courts
269

Eleventh Amendment immunity barred employee of Ohio Department of Mental Health (ODMH) from proceeding
in federal court against ODMH under Family and Medical Leave Act's (FMLA) self-care provision. Higginbotham
v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, S.D.Ohio 2005, 412 F.Supp.2d 806. Federal Courts 269

Congress did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity of state instrumentalities by enacting
provisions of FMLA. Garrett v. Board of Trustees of University of Alabama in Birmingham, N.D.Ala.1998, 989

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

29 U.S.C.A. § 2601 Page 9

F.Supp. 1409, affirmed in part , reversed in part 193 F.3d 1214, certiorari granted in part 120 S.Ct. 1669, 529 U.S.
1065, 146 L.Ed.2d 479, reversed 121 S.Ct. 955, 531 U.S. 356, 148 L.Ed.2d 866, on remand 261 F.3d 1242, affirmed
in part , vacated in part 276 F.3d 1227, on remand 223 F.Supp.2d 1244. Federal Courts 265

FMLA abrogated Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; it was enacted pursuant to constitutional power under
Fourteenth Amendment, and it expressly abrogated sovereign immunity. Jolliffe v. Mitchell, W.D.Va.1997, 986
F.Supp. 339. Federal Courts 265

Congress had constitutional power to abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity in enacting FMLA, as
Fourteenth Amendment formed basis for FMLA. Jolliffe v. Mitchell, W.D.Va.1997, 986 F.Supp. 339. Federal Courts
265

29 U.S.C.A. § 2601, 29 USCA § 2601

Current through PL 111-239 (excluding P.L. 111-203) approved 9-27-10

Westlaw. (C) 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

END OF DOCUMENT

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.