We Are Family: FMLA & Pets?


              It was July 19, 2008 when I found him stiff and unbreathing. Falling to my knees, wailing denials, and beginning CPR despite the odds, I fought to save my son — but he was already gone. Words cannot express the debilitating disbelief, distress, and depression that came over me in waves for years to come. Would your empathy vanish if you knew that my child was not human and that my soulmate was a dog? With an estimated national spending of $60.59 billion and basic annual expenses (per dog) expected to reach $1,641, it is no surprise that Americans consider pets to be members of the family.[1] However, as explained in Madonna Snowden’s SHRM article FMLA Leave Not Available Following Pet’s Death, the law and courts have a contradictory view.[2]
After working as a machinist for two years, the employee contacted his supervisor and requested the following day off. While the initial request was granted, the employee’s second request (two days later) resulted in an unexcused absence. Though the employee explained during the first occurrence that he was upset about having to euthanize a beloved family pet, and then relayed during his second request that he had been unable to sleep since, the article indicates that denial hinged on notification of severity. Allegedly, because the employee did not specify the extent to which he had been affected in both of his requests, the employer justified the unexcused absence in the employee’s file.
Thereafter, the employee sought medical treatment, and indeed, a doctor’s note was presented to the employer requesting that the aforementioned second day be excused; it was not. Conversely, though treatment had allegedly begun for “situational insomnia,” court proceedings indicate that no medications were prescribed, nor were other attempts made by the employee to seek medical assistance in the following three months. During this time, additional unexcused absences resulted in the termination of employment, and the employee’s claim that his rights under FMLA had been violated were rejected by the court because he “failed to give his supervisor adequate notice of his need for leave.”
From the article, the true issue at hand is not what caused the employee’s serious illness, but rather that the employee’s serious health condition (as defined by FMLA) was overshadowed by his violation of FMLA notification and requirement procedures. Blunders are evident across the board from the doctor providing insufficient documentation, and the employee allegedly not providing adequate notice, to the employer’s lack of communication with the employee in general. These incompetencies collided and culminated in a gross overreaction on the employer’s part, which resulted in the employee’s termination, otherwise preventable legal fees, and bad press. Speculatively, had the same employee suffered “situational insomnia” after witnessing an assassination attempt on a public figure or the gruesome injury of a co-worker on the manufacturing plant floor, management may have responded more empathetically to prevent unnecessary publicity for the former and possible work-hazard litigation for the latter.  Their knee-jerk reaction in terminating the employee leaves questions to be asked.
Was this the only disciplinary incident in the employee’s file? Was sick and /or additional vacation available and offered? Was productivity so affected by the employee’s absence that the supervisor felt it necessary to terminate employment in order to protect his own position, or was he protecting the company’s best interest? Was any attempt made to counsel the employee on his attendance, offering guidance as to how he may protect his position while handling the debilitating health concerns? Was an Employee Assistance Plan available, and was the employee aware of its existence? Further, when was FMLA first discussed - before or after termination - and was a Department of Labor-prepared poster displayed prominently in the workplace?
Regardless, the three qualifying factors (incapacitation for more than three days, consultation with a doctor two or more times within thirty days, and /or a doctor visit with a prescribed treatment) could neither be verified by the court nor provided by the former employee. However, whose responsibility is it to ensure that an employee is aware of FMLA requirements? In this case, while the court’s ruling is in accordance with FMLA (when one bases judgement exclusively on fact) ethical concerns are brought to light. The company may not have technically broken the law, but they most certainly did not present an image that would (or rather could) attract and retain top talent.
What is evident in this case is the employer’s disregard for the employee as a human, instead treating him as a mere cog in the manufacturing process. Had this supervisor valued the employee, flowers or a sympathy card (at the very least) would have been sent to the employee’s home. Had the supervisor known the employee at all, or had even the most remedial Emotional Intelligence training, he may have been able to ascertain from the employee’s speech and behavior the level of his distress. At that time, the simple question “Is there anything we can do to help?” or the risky “I’m so sorry. How are you holding up?” may have assuaged the employee’s possible embarrassment at being so distraught for “just a dog.”
Additionally, though the note is an obvious attempt by the health care provider, follow-up was strangely lacking. The doctor surely must have been aware of FMLA requirements, and had the patient continued to present symptoms, why was medication not prescribed? Was the employee’s health insurance billed but no follow-up phone call made to ascertain if the patient continued to suffer ill effects? A good doctor’s office (for both pets and humans) makes a post-visit call to check on the patient’s wellbeing; it’s as much for compassionate customer service as it is for litigation prevention. Yet, treatment (as indicated in the doctor’s note) was never started, and the article provides no explanation. Therefore, while interesting and illuminating, the article poses more questions than it answers. Is this simply a case of FMLA abuse prevented, or is there a problem with the system in general that was dug up with the end of a 13 year old dog’s life?


No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)