 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
HARRISON v. CHILDREN'S NAT. MEDICAL CENTER6/28/1996
This appeal marks the first time that we have been called upon to interpret the District of Columbia Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA" or "the Act"), D.C. Code §§ 36-1301 et seq. (1993). Appellee, Children's National Medical Center (hereafter "Children's Hospital" or "the hospital"), discharged appellant Harrison from her employment after she was absent from work for medical reasons for more than seventeen weeks. Ms. Harrison then brought suit under the FMLA, which guarantees an employee sixteen weeks of medical leave during any twenty-four-month period. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital, and Ms. Harrison brought this appeal, contending that her use of four weeks of previously earned sick leave should not have been counted in calculating the Act's sixteen-week protected period. We affirm.
I
Appellant Harrison, an employee of Children's Hospital, called in sick on May 13, 1991, because she was experiencing pain from a prior back injury. As of that date,
she had accumulated a total of 186 hours of paid sick leave under the hospital's personnel rules. Harrison used that paid sick leave through the pay period ending June 8; thereafter she took unpaid leave.
Ms. Harrison's absence from work continued from May 13 through September 10, more than seventeen weeks. On September 10 she told the hospital that she was ready to return to work. However, on September 24 the hospital notified Ms. Harrison that, because she had "exhausted all of leave protection under the D.C. Family Medical Leave Act," her employment was "terminated."
Ms. Harrison filed this suit under D.C. Code § 36-1310, part of the FMLA, alleging that the hospital had violated the Act by firing her because she had been away on unpaid leave for just over thirteen weeks (but acknowledging that she had taken an additional four weeks of paid sick leave). The hospital moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. In its order the court stated that the sole issue before it was "whether the FMLA allows Plaintiff to 'tack on' accumulated paid sick leave to the 16 weeks of medical leave protected by the Act." The court ruled that such tacking was not allowed:
The FMLA . . . sets up a protected period of only 16 weeks. Depending on an employee's existing benefit plan, she can choose to take this leave either paid or unpaid. In no event, however, is the FMLA's protected period longer than 16 weeks.
II
After this case was argued, this court sua sponte questioned whether the trial court should have dismissed Ms. Harrison's complaint because she had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to her under the FMLA. We asked the parties to file supplemental briefs on the exhaustion issue. Amicus also filed a brief with leave of court, and the hospital filed an additional brief in response to that of amicus.
The exhaustion issue is not an easy one because the FMLA is anything but a model of clarity, and its implementing regulations are not particularly helpful. The FMLA has two sections governing relief. The first and more detailed provision, D.C. Code § 36-1309, establishes an administrative enforcement procedure and describes it with great specificity; the second and far briefer provision, D.C. Code § 36-1310, discusses only enforcement by civil action and makes no mention of administrative relief. Section 36-1309(a) states:
The Mayor shall provide an administrative procedure pursuant to which a person claimed to be aggrieved under this chapter may file a complaint against an employer alleged to have violated this chapter. A complaint shall be filed within one year of the occur
Page 1 2 3 4 5 District of Columbia Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|