FMLA, ADEA, and ADA: Three Workplace Law Scenarios

Introduction to Federal Employment Law

Three federal statutes — the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 — govern some of the most common and consequential disputes in the American workplace. The following scenarios apply each statute to a distinct hypothetical situation.

Situation A: FMLA and Parental Leave Rights

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) was enacted to help employees balance family and work responsibilities (WHD, 2013). It aims to protect and assist those dealing with family or personal health challenges. The rise in single-parent households and the increasing number of women in the workforce often forces employees to choose between work and family obligations. The law seeks to strike a balance between the two. If an employer is covered by FMLA, an employee who has worked for one year or at least 1,250 hours in the preceding year is entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave within a 12-month period. An employer qualifies to offer FMLA coverage if it has 50 or more employees. Both Employee A and his employer meet these qualifications (WHD, 2013).

A qualified employer is obligated by law to grant FMLA leave when a qualified employee requests it for a covered reason (WHD, 2013). If Employee A has not accrued leave, he may use his FMLA entitlement as unpaid time. If he has accrued leave, he may choose to use it, or his employer may require him to do so. Using paid leave will reduce his remaining FMLA allotment. If he exhausts his paid leave and must take unpaid time, the employer is only required to hold his position for as long as he remains within the FMLA entitlement. Once the 12-week allotment is exhausted and he moves into unpaid time beyond that, the employer may exercise its legal right to separate the employee (WHD, 2013).

The birth of Employee A's premature twins is a qualifying reason for FMLA leave (WHD, 2013). He now seeks to return to work and requests that his withheld salary for 11 weeks of leave be paid. The new manager reinstates him but refuses to pay the withheld salary. As a male employee covered by FMLA for the care of newborn children, Employee A is entitled to 12 weeks of leave. Under the applicable policy, his sick leave applies to the first 8 weeks of absence, and his vacation leave applies to the remaining 3 weeks. Because the 11 weeks of absence were covered by accrued paid leave under FMLA, the new manager's decision to deny the request for withheld salary was correct.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) applies to the case of Employee B. ADEA is among the earliest workplace discrimination statutes, enacted specifically to protect older workers (SHRM, 2013). It was passed just four years after the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and protects employees aged 40 and over from age-based discrimination. The Act prohibits employers from making decisions regarding hiring, firing, promotions, compensation, and training on the basis of age. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the enforcing agency. Companies are generally prohibited from stating age preferences in job advertisements. While employers may ask for an applicant's date of birth, they will be subject to monitoring or investigation if a charge of age discrimination is subsequently filed. Because health issues tend to be more frequent among workers over 40, the law permits companies to reduce benefits for older employees — provided those reduced benefits cost the employer an amount equivalent to what is spent on benefits for younger employees (SHRM, 2013).

Situation B: Age Discrimination Under the ADEA

ADEA prohibits employers from refusing to hire or discharge a person, or from discriminating against him or her regarding compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on account of age (SHRM, 2013). Employers are also prohibited from limiting, segregating, or classifying employees in any way that deprives them of employment opportunities based on age, and they may not reduce an employee's wage rate for the same reason (SHRM, 2013).

Employee B is 68 years old with 42 years of work experience. His most recent annual performance review rated him above average, yet he was denied a promotion he merited because of his age. That promotion was awarded instead to a 32-year-old co-worker who received only an adequate performance rating. This constitutes a clear violation of the ADEA.

Discrimination against older workers often stems from the stereotype that they are no longer capable or efficient (SHRM, 2013). In reality, their experience and insight remain valuable assets to any organization. Older employees must not be denied employment or advancement on the basis of age, and they retain the right to take legal action when such discrimination occurs (SHRM, 2013).

Persons with disabilities face unique challenges — not only the practical difficulties associated with their conditions, but also the risk of ridicule and discrimination in the workplace (EEOC, 2013). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to address these challenges.

Conclusion

Each of the three scenarios illustrates how major federal employment statutes operate in practice. The FMLA, ADEA, and ADA each establish specific eligibility thresholds and employer obligations that determine the outcome of real workplace disputes. In Situation A, the employer acted within the law in denying the withheld salary. In Situation B, the employer clearly violated the ADEA by denying a promotion on the basis of age. In Situation C, the employer was legally justified in its decision under the undue hardship doctrine. Together, these cases underscore the importance of understanding U.S. labor and employment law for both employers and employees.