Comply with Rules and Regulations

Instructions

Review the case study Noncompliance with the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in Chapter 8 (pg. 225) of Pozgar (2020). Without including an abstract, address the following in an APA-formatted Word document of 1,000 to 1,500 words:

• Describe what recourse the employee has when faced with discriminatory practices, both within the corporation and outside of the corporation.
• Describe the legal and ethical issues presented by the case.
• Recommendations actions organizations can take to avoid such legal and ethical issues.Support your perspective using evidence-based information from at least

3 authoritative (Links to an external site.) sources.

Comply with Rules and Regulations

The governing body in general and its agents are responsible for compliance with federal, state, and local rules and regulations regarding the operation of the organization. Depending on the scope of the wrong committed and the intent of the governing body, failure to comply could subject board members and/or their agents to civil liability and, in some instances, to criminal prosecution. The following Reality Check describes what can happen when an organization fails to comply with the provisions of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

 Noncompliance with the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 was enacted to grant temporary medical leave to employees up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for such things as the birth and care of an employee’s child, the care of an immediate family member with a serious health condition, or inability to work because of a serious health condition. After an FMLA leave, the employee’s job—or an equivalent job with equivalent pay, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment—must be restored.

Ten CEOs and human resource directors were randomly queried to determine their compliance with the FMLA. Specifically, in 9 of the 10 organizations queried, a nurse, for example, would be returned to the same or similar position without financial penalty (e.g., prorated salary increase) after her return from family leave.

One organization chose to penalize an employee’s employment status by removing the employee’s part-time status for the remainder of the year in which family leave had been granted and taken. In addition, this same organization’s leaders prorated the employee’s salary increase. In effect, this was a penalty that would be compounded each year the employee worked in the organization.

On appeal by the employee to the United States Department of Labor, this organization was required to reimburse the employee for lost wages unlawfully withheld from the employee during the year in which family leave had been taken