|
James M. Sconzo, Michael G. Petrie, Jonathan C. Sterling Editors
Jorden Burt LLP
Vol. 15, No. 9
September 2007
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE
Connecticut high court clarifies CFMLA definition of 'accumulated sick time'
by Michael G. Petrie
In 2003, the Connecticut Legislature amended the Connecticut Family and Medical Leave Act (CFMLA) to prohibit employers from denying employees the right to use up to two weeks of paid "accumulated sick leave" for family or medical leave purposes.
Before a recent Connecticut Supreme Court decision, it was unclear whether that provision applied to all paid-sick-leave policies or only those that provided paid sick leave carried over from one year to the next. Because of inconsistent language in
the law, some of you struggled to reconcile the amendment with your already-existing policies.
The supreme court has determined that given the CFMLA's spirit and overall intent, "accumulated sick leave" must be interpreted to include any paid sick leave that was earned or accrued at the time of the CFMLA leave, regardless of whether it could
be carried over to the next year.
SNET vs. CFMLA
In 2001, Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET) and its employees entered into a collective bargaining agreement that included a graduated sick-leave policy based on employment longevity. Under the agreement, full-time employees received:
- no sick leave during their first year of employment;
- five days of paid sick leave at the beginning of their second year of employment; and
- 10 days at the commencement of their third year and for each year of employment thereafter.
The agreement contained a so-called "use-it-or-lose-it" provision, meaning that it didn't permit unused paid sick leave at the end of the year to be carried over to the following year.
In 2003, the CFMLA was amended to add a new section, which states that it's a violation "for any employer to deny an employee the right to use up to two weeks of accumulated sick leave" or to discharge or otherwise discriminate against him for using
(or attempting to use) up to two weeks of accumulated sick leave for CFMLA leave. The Act defines "sick leave" to mean an absence from work that's paid through an employer's bona fide written policy providing compensation for the loss of wages caused
by illness. It doesn't include absences from work for which compensation is provided through an employer's plan, such as a short- or long-term disability plan, regardless of whether the plan is self-insured. The term "accumulated sick leave" isn't
defined.
The legislature's interchangeable use of similar terms such as accrued, earned, and accumulated resulted in some confusing and contradictory interpretations of the CFMLA's provision on accumulated sick leave. On April 16, 2004, SNET requested a
declaratory ruling from the labor commissioner on the following question: Does an employer's policy provide "accumulated sick leave," as that term is used in the CFMLA, when (1) it sets a maximum number of sick days per year for which an employee may
be paid for her own illness and (2) the leave isn't carried over from one year to the next but is lost if she doesn't use it by the end of any calendar year?
In other words, SNET sought to validate its interpretation that the CFMLA didn't apply to its use-it-or-lose-it policy because sick leave technically didn't "accumulate."
The appeal
The labor commissioner ruled that even though an employee's paid sick leave didn't pile up year after year, the CFMLA nevertheless prohibited SNET from denying its employees the right to use paid sick leave they earned during each year for CFMLA
leave. The company appealed to the superior court, lost again, and eventually took its case to the supreme court.
Pointing out that the dictionary defines "accumulated" to be a gradual piling up or increasing so as to make a store or great quantity, SNET argued that the term applied only to sick leave that carried over from one year to the next. The court wasn't
impressed with that logic. Rather, it focused on the CFMLA's overall intent and purpose, which is to make family and medical leave available to a greater number of people and ease the financial burden on those who might be required to take time away
from work to care for their family members. The only noteworthy limitation was the inclusion of a maximum of two weeks of paid leave because of the provision's potential economic effect on individual businesses if employees with large amounts of
unused leave were permitted to substitute all of their accrued sick leave for family or medical leave purposes.
The court also recognized that the CFMLA has always allowed an eligible employee the right to elect — and an employer the right to require the employee — to substitute any of the "accrued paid . . . sick leave" for any part of the CFMLA
leave to which he is entitled. SNET's interpretation of the CFMLA would have been at odds with that other provision. Overall, the court concluded that the legislature broadly understood "accumulated sick leave" to refer simply to paid sick leave that
an employee has earned but not yet used.
Bottom line
The Connecticut Supreme Court provides you with a definitive answer that harmonizes two somewhat inconsistent provisions. In the past, the substitution of paid sick leave for unpaid sick leave was simply permitted. Now it's beyond question that you
must allow an employee to use at least two weeks of paid sick leave in place of otherwise unpaid CFMLA leave if she elects to do so. Bear in mind that the leaves run concurrently, so this approach doesn't increase the employee's total CFMLA leave
entitlement beyond 16 weeks during a two-year period.
Copyright 2007 M. Lee Smith Publishers LLC
CONNECTICUT EMPLOYMENT LAW LETTER does not attempt to offer solutions to individual problems but rather seeks to provide information about current developments in Connecticut law. It is provided as a means of conveying accurate, but general,
information. It is not intended as legal advice, which must always be tailored to individual needs and particular circumstances. Questions about individual problems should be addressed to the attorney of your choice. The State Bar of Connecticut does
not designate attorneys as board certified in employment, and we do not claim certification in any listed area.
|
