A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

What Are Employees Rights To Family And Medical Leave

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Get Answers To Your Questions About FMLA

There’s a lot of talk these days about the importance of work-life balance. While being a good employee is certainly important, it is just as important to take care of your loved ones and your health when a new child joins the family or when a serious illness strikes.

In fact, taking time off is more than just a good idea – it’s your right under federal law.

What is the Family and Medical Leave Act?

The Family and Medical Leave act – commonly referred to as FMLA – protects an employee’s right to take unpaid leave from work under certain circumstances:

  • To bond with a newborn, adopted, or foster child
  • To care for an immediate family member with a serious health concern
  • To care for the employee’s own serious health condition

FMLA leave can last for up to 12 weeks in any given 12-month period. Employees are entitled to return to their same job, or a “nearly identical” one, once their leave is over. “Nearly identical” jobs must have substantially similar duties and must have the same pay and benefits as the employee’s pre-leave position.

Who qualifies for FMLA?

Not every employee qualifies to take FMLA leave. In order to qualify, the employee must have worked for the employer for at least 12 months, and must have worked at least 1,250 hours during the 12 months preceding the start of leave. In addition, the employee must work for either:

  • A public employer (e.g., state, local or federal governments, schools or public agencies); or
  • A private employer that has 50 or more employees within 75 miles of the employee’s location

Does an employee have to give notice to take FMLA leave?

Generally speaking, employees who want to take FMLA leave are supposed to give notice at least 30 days before starting leave, so long as doing so is practical. If the need for leave is not foreseeable 30 days in advance (for example, because of a sudden-onset condition), the employee must give notice as soon as is practical. Employees should follow their employer’s normal procedures when giving notice.

What kind of proof can an employer require?

Employers are allowed to ask for proof that the employee or their immediate family member is suffering from a serious medical condition. Usually, this comes in the form of a certification from the patient’s care provider.

Employers are allowed to ask for a second opinion if they doubt the validity of the certification. They can also contact the care provider to verify whether the certification is genuine. Employers may not, however, require employees to turn over their medical records, nor can they ask a care provider for medical information beyond that which is provided on the certification form.

What can employees do if they are not being treated fairly?

Employees who have been denied leave, who have had their job taken away while on leave or who have otherwise been treated unfairly for exercising their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act can turn to an experienced employment law attorney for help. Depending on the circumstances of the case, aggrieved employees may be eligible to receive compensation for lost wages and other financial damages. They may also be eligible for equitable relief such as reemployment after termination or reinstatement into a previously-held position.

Mistreated employees in the Los Angeles area can contact the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. for a free initial consultation. Call ( toll free) or email the firm today. You will talk directly with an attorney when you work with the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.