Category Archives: Family and Medical Leave Act

Report Targets Walmart Policies

Walmart’s absence control program “punishes workers who need to be there for their own families,” according to a new report released late last week.

The report, “Pointing Out: How Walmart Unlawfully Punishes Workers for Medical Absences,” was produced by A Better Balance, an advocacy group that supports legislators across the nation in “researching, drafting and testifying on behalf of bills to help workers care for themselves and their families without risking their paychecks,” according to its website.

“Walmart disciplines workers for occasional absences due to caring for sick or disabled family members and for needing to take time off for their own illnesses or disabilities,” the report states.

“Although this system is supposed to be ‘neutral,’ and punish all absences equally, along the lines of a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy,” the report continues, “in reality such a system is brutally unfair. It punishes workers for things they cannot control and disproportionately harms the most vulnerable workers.”

The group based its findings of alleged illegal behavior at the superstore chain on conversations with Walmart employees as well as survey results of over 1,000 current and former Walmart workers who have struggled due to Walmart’s absence control program.

“Walmart may regularly be violating the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by failing to give adequate notice to its employees about when absences might be protected by the FMLA and by giving its employees disciplinary points for taking time to care for themselves, their children, their spouses or their parents even though that time is covered by the FMLA,” the report states.

In response, Walmart told the New York Times that it had not reviewed the report but disputed the group’s conclusions, and said that the company’s attendance policies helped make sure that there were enough employees to help customers while protecting workers from regularly covering others’ duties.

“We understand that associates may have to miss work on occasion, and we have processes in place to assist them,” Randy Hargrove, a spokesman for Walmart, said. The company reviews each employee’s circumstances individually, he said, “in compliance with company policy and the law.”

Of RIFs and FMLA Requests

Every HR professional knows that FMLA requests can get tricky, and that non-compliance can get costly. A recent court ruling shows there might be a price to pay even when an employee doesn’t explicitly make an FMLA request.

According to Crain v. Schlumberger Technology, Gregory Crain worked for 10 years as a regional sales manager for Schlumberger Technology Corp. and its predecessor company.

Terminated from his position as part of a reduction in force, Crain subsequently filed an FMLA interference claim, contending that the company violated his leave rights by letting him go just days after informing the organization that he needed to undergo surgery that would force him to take time off from work.

In October 2016, a jury agreed with Crain, awarding him $77,007; the amount of his severance. More recently, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana affirmed that ruling, awarding Crain the original verdict award along with an additional, equal amount in liquidated damages. In other words, Schlumberger must now pay double the damages.

Why? The timing of Crain’s termination was certainly a factor, according to Tina Syring, a Minneapolis-based partner at Barnes & Thornburg and a member of the firm’s labor and employment law department.

As Syring points out, Crain’s name was included in the list of employees to be included in the RIF; a list that surfaced two days after his surgery.

“Prior to the formal notification, however, the plaintiff’s name was never included in any company RIF documents, even though the employer’s witnesses claimed that the decision to include him in the RIF was made weeks before such notice.”

In the end, she says, “the jury found the employer’s witnesses less credible than the company’s lack of documentation surrounding the decision to include the plaintiff in the reduction in force.”

Syring describes this decision as a “great reminder” that documentation matters when mapping out a reduction in force.

“According to the court, given the weight of the evidence (or lack thereof) and the temporal proximity of the termination, it was not an unreasonable decision by the jury to find in favor of the plaintiff.  Thus, when addressing RIFs, employers should take the time to carefully document which employees are being considered for the RIF and update this documentation throughout the decision-making process.”

Adding another wrinkle to this case is the fact that Crain didn’t specifically mention FMLA when he told the company that he would undergo surgery and would subsequently require time away from work. He did, however, inquire as to short-term disability leave, which ultimately compels the company to weigh the possibility of FMLA leave.

“As the Crain court noted, an employee is not required to use any sort of ‘magic words’ to provide notice of the need for FMLA leave,” says Syring.

“In this situation, the plaintiff made an inquiry to human resources about short-term disability. The Crain court found that to be sufficient notice to the employer to at least make an inquiry as to whether FMLA leave notice and adherence obligations were triggered,” she says, adding that testimony had also been given to confirm that the plaintiff told his former supervisor and two HR representatives that he was going to have surgery.

“Because the company could not demonstrate that it even considered the possible application of FMLA leave prior to [Crain’s] termination, the court found that the employer’s actions were neither in good faith or reasonable.  As a result, liquidated damages were awarded against the company.”

 

 

No Movement on Maternity Leave

Despite a host of factors that would suggest otherwise, the number of U.S. women taking maternity leave has changed very little in the last two-plus decades.

So says a new study from Ohio State University, which finds that, on average, roughly 273,000 women in the United States took maternity leave each month between the years 1994 and 2015, “with no trend upward or downward,” according to an OSU statement. Fewer than half of those women were paid during their leave, the same statement notes.

Pointing to variables like an economy that has grown 66 percent in that time, and the number of states implementing paid family leave legislation over that 22-year span, study author Jay Zagorsky, a research scientist at OSU’s Center for Human Resource Research, “expected to see an increasing number of women taking maternity leave. It was surprising and troubling that I didn’t.”

Zagorsky did, however, find the number of fathers taking paternity leave tripling between 1994 and 2015, “although the numbers are much smaller than those of women taking time off.”

More specifically, the number of men taking paternity leave rose from 5,800 men per month in ’94 to 22,000 per month in ’15.

In addition, Zagorsky’s study—based on data culled from the Current Population Survey, a monthly poll conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau—found that most women taking maternity leave were not paid. Less than half (48 percent) were compensated for leave in 2015. And, paid maternity leave is increasing, but only at a rate of less than one percentage point per year, according to Zagorsky.

“At that rate, it will take about another decade before even half of U.S. women going on leave will get paid time off,” he says. “This is a very low figure for the nation with the world’s largest annual gross domestic product.”

By comparison, more than 70 percent of men taking paternity leave in 2015 were compensated for their time off, says Zagorsky, who reasons that “one possible reason for this gender gap is that few men are willing to take unpaid leave to care for a newborn.”

Given that the inflation-adjusted gross domestic product went from $9.9 trillion a year in 1994 to $16.4 trillion in 2015, “it would have been reasonable to expect that some of the benefits of this large economic expansion would have gone to working women with newborn children, but that’s not what I found,” says Zagorsky.

He was equally startled by the effect, or lack thereof, that new paid family leave laws in California, New Jersey and Rhode Island have had on maternity leave numbers, noting that those three states comprised 16 percent of the U.S. female labor force in 2015.

“If the laws were effective, some impact should be seen in national data,” says Zagorsky. “These results suggest we have a long way to go to catch up with the rest of the world as far as providing for new mothers and their children.”

 

Don’t Get Blindsided by Family-Leave Laws

Ever wonder what a typical case of family-responsibility discrimination involving elder care might look like? Consider this 538047854 -- elder carescenario laid out in a piece by Tom Spiggle that posted on the Huffington Post in June:

“You have an elderly parent who suffers from Alzheimer’s. He requires continuous care. You have worked at the same job for five years with a strong, positive work history. To better care for your father, you move him out of assisted living into your house. A paid caregiver takes care of him during the day, but leaves at 6, which means that you have to be home then.

“Your performance at work remains strong, but you are no longer able to take part in the informal after-work get-together frequently arranged by your boss. After missing these for a month, your boss stops by your office to ask why. You tell him. He responds ‘How long will this go on?’ You tell him maybe years. After this, things change at work. For no apparent reason, your boss begins to criticize your work. At one point, HR puts you on a performance-improvement plan.

“Although you do everything they ask and more, nothing seems good enough. One day, your father falls at your house, breaking an arm. You have to leave work early to get to the hospital and miss work the next day. You call HR, letting them know what happened and put in for [Family and Medical Leave Act] leave to cover the absence. When you return, the axe falls; you get fired. The last communication you receive from your boss is an email: ‘I’m sorry it had to end like this. You will be missed. I hope that this gives you the time that you need with your father.’

“That would be discrimination under the Family Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Granted, his piece speaks primarily to employees, but there are some nuggets worth reviewing for employers, such as a little-known fact (little known by me anyway) that some bosses seem fine and accommodating with the first child, “but their attitude is that one child should have been enough,” writes Spiggle, an employment lawyer and founder of the Spiggle Law Firm, based in Arlington, Va.

(Note to anyone reading this who considers this a familiar occurrence in his or her organization: Time for some manager training!)

Here’s another nugget: Employees claiming they were discriminated against or weren’t accommodated under family-leave law have much stronger cases if they ask for the law’s protection while they’re still working for you. Spiggle elaborates (remember, this is directed at employees, so interpret between the lines):

“Let me give you an example. Suppose that your boss says that you are a shoo-in for a promotion. Before things become official, you announce your pregnancy. Next thing you know, the promotion goes to a man who is your junior. When you confront your boss, she shrugs and says, ‘Them’s the breaks. Next round.’ Let’s suppose things only go downhill from there and you get fired, even though your performance remained unchanged.

“Here’s the thing: If you had complained about being skipped over for the promotion because you were pregnant before you were fired, you’d have a second claim of retaliation, which is easier to prove and gives you more leverage.

“There’s also a chance that, by reporting your concerns, you might get the problem fixed. Sometimes companies do the right thing when they learn that a rogue manager is violating the law. By reporting what happened, you give the company a chance to fix it.”

Probably the most telling piece of information he shares though — as does Mark McGraw in this HRE Daily post from May — is the fact that the number of family-responsibility-discrimination cases are going way up. McGraw and Spiggle both cite a report, Caregivers in the Workplace: Family Responsibilities Discrimination Litigation Update 2016, showing a 269-percent increase in the number of family-responsibility-discrimination cases between 2006 and 2015.

Many of our HREOnline.com news analyses have also mentioned this increase and the fact that far too many employers still don’t seem to get it when it comes to proactively turning that trend around.

Consider this a reminder, then, to get your anti-family-caregiver-discrimination house in order. And make sure you’re up on the nuances involved, including who has what rights and when — and precisely what this form of discrimination looks like.

The Cost of Not Accommodating Caregivers

Some employers “still aren’t getting it when it comes to discriminating against employees with family responsibilities.”

So says Joan C. Williams, founding director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in a recent statement highlighting findings from a new UC Hastings study.

And, judging by some of the statistics found in said study, it’s hard to argue that she has a point.

The report, Caregivers in the Workplace: Family Responsibilities Discrimination Litigation Update 2016, analyzed 4,400 family responsibilities discrimination cases that were filed in the United States between the years 2006 and 2015.  Report author Cynthia Thomas Calver looked at employees’ claims alleging discrimination based on their status as a pregnant woman, mother, father, or a caregiver for a sick or disabled family member or an aging or ill parent, and found a 269 percent increase in the number of such cases filed in that 10-year span, compared to the prior decade.

While you’re digesting that number, chew on these facts and figures to emerge from the UC Hastings report:

  • Claims for FRD have been filed in every U.S. state.
  • Cases involving eldercare have increased 650 percent in the last 10 years.
  • Pregnancy accommodation cases have gone up by 315 percent.
  • Though the number of claims remains small, suits in which an employer is alleged to have denied accommodations or discriminated against an employee because she was breastfeeding or needed to express milk during the workday has risen by 800 percent.
  • Male employees have brought 55 percent of spousal care cases, 39 percent of eldercare cases, 38 percent of FMLA cases and 28 percent of childcare cases.
  • A clear majority of employees are succeeding with family responsibilities discrimination suits, with workers winning 67 percent of the FRD claims that went to trial from ’06 to ’15.

Naturally, these claims are hitting American employers pretty hard in the wallet. FRD litigation cost U.S. companies $477 million over the past decade (compared to roughly $197 million from 1996 to 2005), according to the WorkLife Law report, which suggests that the actual amount is “likely to be significantly higher, as many settlements are confidential.” These figures “also fail to capture the ripple effects of discrimination, including employee attrition and related replacement costs, damage to the company’s public reputation and reductions in the morale and productivity of all employees.”

The report also lays out some steps for preventing family responsibilities discrimination within the organization, such as providing supervisor training, adopting anti-discrimination policies that include family responsibilities, activating HR-run oversight programs and ensuring that the company’s procedures for responding to employee complaints address FRD.

In the aforementioned statement, Calvert, a senior advisor to the Center for WorkLife Law, stresses the importance of adapting to America’s evolving workforce and families, and the cost of failing to do so.

“Until employers adjust to the realities of families with all adults in the paid workforce and a significant growth in the number of older Americans who need assistance from their adult working children, it’s unlikely we’ll see a decrease in the number of cases filed.”

Obama Pushes on Paid Sick Leave

As you may have heard — perhaps while flipping burgers or just generally enjoying the last unofficial day of summer yesterday — President Obama took the occasion of the Labor Day holiday to sign an executive order requiring federal contractors to provide up to seven days of paid sick leave a year to their roughly 300,000 workers, according to the New York Times.

The story notes, however, that the impact of the executive order may not be felt for a few years after Obama leaves office:

“The executive order will have no real effect until after Mr. Obama’s presidency. Because it must first go through a public comment period, it will apply only to new federal contracts starting in 2017. But the White House hopes it will set a standard that will prod lawmakers, private employers, and state and local governments to expand their leave policies.”

For those employees who do not work for a federal contractor that does not provide paid sick leave, hope remains for them as well, as ABC News reports. It just ran a piece on how paid sick-leave laws vary across the country:

The good news for employees is that the number of paid sick leave laws has more than doubled in the past year, according to XpertHR, and that legal landscape is going to change with new laws that will take effect next year in places like Oregon; Tacoma, Washington; and Montgomery County, Maryland.

The story also breaks down the paid sick-leave laws on the books from New Jersey to California.

While employees are definitely welcoming the general shift toward more paid-sick time, ABC News quotes a source from the National Federation of Independent Business, who, “while acknowledging that Mr. Obama has the authority to place conditions on federal contractors, said his latest action was another burdensome government mandate” on private companies.

“No business in America would require its suppliers and contractors to increase costs that will naturally boomerang back in the form of higher prices,” said Jack Mozloom, the federation’s media director.

The High Cost of Warm Fuzzies

I admit the following with a recently delivered dash of remorse: I am an avowed Amazon Prime customer and I always get a “warm fuzzy” when a product I ordered in the morning arrives on my front porch before I even get home from work.

With that said, reading the New York Timesrecent in-depth look at Amazon’s corporate culture definitely left me with a “cold prickly,” or what the company calls the feeling customers get when they are informed their packages will not arrive as scheduled.

In case you haven’t read the piece yet — and I highly recommend you do — the Times “interviewed more than 100 current and former Amazon employees, including many who spoke on the record and some who requested anonymity because they had signed agreements saying they would not speak to the press.”

One of the few employees Amazon allowed to speak on the record (via email) for the piece was its vice president of HR, who defended the company’s attitude toward open confrontation in the workplace:

“We always want to arrive at the right answer,” said Tony Galbato, vice president for human resources, in an email statement. “It would certainly be much easier and socially cohesive to just compromise and not debate, but that may lead to the wrong decision.”

The story about the company that has just been valued at $250 billion has generated enough controversy that founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, who declined to be interviewed for the original story, nonetheless felt compelled to push back against some of the more damaging claims made in it, according to a follow-up piece by the Times:

In a letter to employees, Mr. Bezos said Amazon would not tolerate the “shockingly callous management practices” described in the article. He urged any employees who knew of “stories like those reported” to contact him directly.

“Even if it’s rare or isolated, our tolerance for any such lack of empathy needs to be zero,” Mr. Bezos said.

The NYT piece quotes Jason Merkoski, a 42-year-old engineer, who worked on the team developing the first Kindle e-reader and served as a technology evangelist for Amazon, who left the company in 2010 and then returned briefly in 2014.

Among the many disheartening stories of uncaring — or even malicious — co-workers, Merkoski’s quote perhaps best sums up the queasy essence of how work gets done there:

“The sheer number of innovations means things go wrong, you need to rectify, and then explain, and heaven help you if you got an email from Jeff,” he said. “It’s as if you’ve got the CEO of the company in bed with you at 3 a.m. breathing down your neck.”

Jason Averbook, CEO of The Marcus Buckingham Co., and one of the top thought leaders in the space of HR, workforce and enterprise technology — as well as being named as one of the 10 Most Powerful HR Technology experts by HRE — says the Amazon story offers a few powerful lessons for HR leaders everywhere.

“We need to be able to understand the pulse of employees much better than we do today,” he says. “It should never get to the point where employees see news media or social media as the only resort.

“And for a metrics-driven organization such as Amazon, it’s a shame and a shock that neither Bezos nor team leaders across the organization have quality people data that shows what’s at work in their teams. Because of this dearth of people data, we cannot truly know what their culture is like, and this situation emphasizes the need for reliable, real-time measures of team-level data for companies of all sizes.”

Averbook adds that companies need to “be doing a much better job of putting tools into the hands of team leaders themselves to empower them to take action.”

With the volume of millennials entering the workplace — even in managerial roles — “we need to provide both the training and tools to allow them to lead effectively,” he says. “It’s a reminder for companies to take a look at their current processes and identify how they need to improve now.

“This is the kick in the pants HR and companies need,” he adds. “If there was ever a question about the return on investment of HR tools and processes, the Amazon debacle should resolve those concerns as long as they are the right tools and processes.”

But, despite the public-relations black eye the story has caused Amazon, it certainly appears the company will continue to grow toward being the first trillion-dollar retailer in history, regardless of how we feel about the way our packages and products ultimately get to us.

Indeed, in Seattle alone, according to the piece, “more than 4,500 jobs are open, including one for an analyst specializing in ‘high-volume hiring.’ “

Nestle Launches Global Maternity-Protection Policy

Besides its popular, branded products, employees at Nestle have something else to brag about – the company’s new maternity leave policy.

The global food and beverage company recently announced that it is more than doubling paid and unpaid maternity leave for employees worldwide. For employees in its seven US operating companies, the benefit will kick in on Jan 1. The policy also applies to male employees and adoptive parents who serve as primary caregivers of their newborns following birth or adoption.

The policy is based on revisions from the International Labour Organization’s Maternity Protection Convention, which offered minimum standards that will be implemented at all Nestle workplaces around the world by 2018.

Take a look at these benefits. It puts many maternity policies in the United States to shame:

  • New moms can take up to 26 weeks off of work, which includes 14 weeks paid leave and 12 weeks unpaid leave. Previously, the company offered six weeks of paid leave and another six weeks of unpaid leave.
  • New moms can also extend their maternity leave up to six months
  • New fathers can take one week of paid paternity leave and one additional week of unpaid leave.

The policy also offers flexible working arrangements and guaranteed access to breastfeeding rooms during work hours in head offices and sites that employ more than 50 people. Currently, Nestle supports more than 190 breastfeeding rooms across working facilities worldwide.

The company’s employees appear to be very happy about the new policy changes based on the vast number of email praises sent to HR. I’ll bet if HR conducted an employment engagement survey today, it would see numbers regarding job satisfaction, company loyalty and productivity soar. Not to mention retention and, as a possible side affect, customer loyalty.

According to the company’s press release, “The company believes that the first 1,000 days between the start of a pregnancy and a child’s second birthday offer a unique window of opportunity to shape healthier and more prosperous futures.”

The policy is a nice complement to the Family and Medical Leave Act, which Congress passed more than 20 years ago. The law requires companies with more than 50 employees to offer parents and adoptive parents up to 12 weeks of unpaid family leave after the birth of a child.

In Nestlé’s case, it made a conscious choice to add two more paid months to its exiting maternity leave. That additional time can mean the difference between fatigued, low-producing employees who constantly worry and call their daycare provider and those who are rested and ready to focus on their job responsibilities.

Kudos to Nestle, I say.

But being skeptical by nature, I asked the company if the new policy was due to changes in its workforce composition. Perhaps it plans on hiring more Millenials and is using the new policy as an effective recruitment and retention tool.

Here’s how HR responded:

“It wasn’t so much a reaction to the changes in our workforce as it was a desire to have our benefits to catch up to how families have evolved,” explains Judy Cascapera, Nestle USA’s chief people officer. “As a company committed to enhancing our employees’ lives and helping families improve their nutrition, health and wellness, Nestle expanded our policy to make sure we’re living up to that vision.”

However, she also believes that the new maternity policy can help retain workers and ultimately produce happier and more productive employees.

Meanwhile, it seems like some companies are taking baby steps regarding maternity leave policies. According to the ILO’s recent Maternity Protection study, 38 percent of the 185 countries surveyed provided at least 14 weeks of maternity leave back in 1994. By 2013, only 51 percent of those same countries did.

By implementing this new policy, Nestle gets it. It understands the value of such benefits and recognizes the contribution they make not only to the company’s overall success, but also to the health and wellbeing of its employees and communities it serves.

Are We On the Path to Paid Sick Leave?

sick employeePaid sick leave seems to be on everyone’s mind lately, from Hillary Clinton and Thomas Perez to the leadership at Chipotle and McDonald’s.

For example, you may remember Secretary of Labor Perez recently embarking on the Lead on Leave—Empowering Working Families Across America tour, during which he sought to “promote best practices and discuss how paid leave and other flexible workplace policies can help support working families and business,” according to a Department of Labor statement.

One of Perez’s stops on that roughly month-long jaunt was Oregon, where lawmakers recently passed a measure that would require employers with at least 10 workers to offer up to 40 hours of paid sick time annually. If Oregon Governor Kate Brown signs the bill—which she is expected to do—the Beaver State would join California, Connecticut and Massachusetts as the only states to have enacted paid sick leave requirements.

President Obama has urged Congress to pass federal legislation giving U.S. workers seven days of paid sick leave. But the consensus remains that such a bill would be unlikely to gain the necessary Congressional support in the near future.

Some companies, of course, aren’t waiting for a federal paid sick leave law to become reality. Microsoft, for example, made headlines in March by requiring many of its 2,000 contractors and vendors to offer 15 paid days off for sick days and vacation to their employees who perform work for Microsoft.

At the time, many scoffed at the notion of other large companies doing the same, but two of the biggest names in the fast-food universe were quick to follow the Redmond, Wash.-based tech giant’s lead.

Just days after Microsoft went public with its bold move, for instance, McDonald’s announced it would add paid time off to its roster of benefits, even for part-time workers, at the 10 percent of McDonald’s franchises that are company-owned.

And, effective July 1, Denver-based Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. will provide paid sick leave to hourly workers—a benefit previously enjoyed exclusively by the restaurant chain’s salaried workers.

The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination would no doubt like to see more employers go a similar route.

Hillary Clinton has made paid sick leave a centerpiece of her platform, commending cities such as Philadelphia for signing paid sick leave bills into law, and expressing her support for such legislation in public forums.

This week, the New York Times made mention of Clinton’s assertion that no one should “have to choose between keeping a paycheck and caring for a new baby or a sick relative,” in a piece noting the momentum gathering behind paid sick leave in the business sector as well as the political sphere.

“With pay for most workers still growing sluggishly—as it has been for most of the last 15 years—political leaders are searching for policies that can lift middle-class living standards,” according to the Times. “Companies, for their part, are becoming more aggressive in trying to retain workers as the unemployment rate has fallen below 6 percent.”

Still, the fact remains that federal legislation seems unlikely to materialize any time soon, as the Times acknowledges.

“With most Republicans in Congress opposed to new leave laws, the biggest changes will probably occur at the state and local level, including in some Republican-led states.”

True enough. But with no federal movement on the horizon, it will be interesting to see if states or individual companies make significant changes in the coming months, or if Microsoft, Chipotle, McDonald’s and the like will remain outliers on paid sick leave.

Staples Settles After FMLA Fail

Let’s put this next story in the “Why It’s Important to Make Sure Your Employees Know Their Family and Medical Leave Act Rights” file:

Late last week, the U.S. Department of Labor announced a settlement that was reached in a consent decree and approved by a federal court with Staples Inc., with the company agreeing to pay fired employee Jeffrey Angstadt $275,000 in wages, benefits and damages after failing to inform him of job protections to care for his ailing wife.

(A request for comment from Staples has yet to be returned.)

According to the DOL’s investigation, the furniture sales executive told his employer, Staples Contract and Commercial, Inc., a South Carolina-based subsidiary of Staples, Inc., that he needed to take leave to care for his critically ill wife in September 2010. But, the DOL notes:

While Angstadt was eligible for federal workplace protections for those coping with the illness of a family member, no one at Staples notified him as the law requires.

So, for the next two years, Angstadt used his personal, sick and vacation days, and worked remotely as needed to balance his work obligations and to care for his wife.

In January 2012, the DOL says, his supervisors decided Angstadt wasn’t meeting his job responsibilities, and the company fired him. Two months later, an investigation began by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division district office in Columbia, South Carolina. Following the investigation, the department then sued Staples in June 2013 for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Said Wage and Hour Division Administrator Dr. David Weil in announcing the settlement:

“For more than 20 years, the Family and Medical Leave Act has been a critical safety net for working families. It ensures that no one should have to choose between the job they need and the family they love.”

As a part of the settlement, the company will also promote an enterprise-wide policy for compliance with the FMLA by providing training for human resources and other managerial personnel with respect to FMLA notice and eligibility requirements; post FMLA enforcement posters in the workplace; and investigate and respond to complaints of potential FMLA violations concerning an employee’s notice of FMLA rights, including correcting violations when discovered.

Unfortunately, Angstadt’s wife died in 2014 and did not live long enough to see justice served in her husband’s case.

Indeed, “when an employee must be away from work to care for a loved one, there are no second chances to get it right,” said Wage and Hour Division Administrator Dr. David Weil.