<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FMLA law Family Medical Leave Act update, Latest cases on FMLA Law &#187; Uncategorized</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fmla-law.com/category/uncategorized/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fmla-law.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:46:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Employee&#8217;s spoliation of data warranted dismissal and $65,000 sanction</title>
		<link>http://fmla-law.com/2007/05/17/employees-spoliation-of-data-warranted-dismissal-and-65000-sanction/</link>
		<comments>http://fmla-law.com/2007/05/17/employees-spoliation-of-data-warranted-dismissal-and-65000-sanction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 20:38:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>fmlalaw</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fmla-law.com/?p=16</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not an FMLA case but worth noting. Employee&#8217;s destruction of data on his employer-owned laptop amounted to willful spoliation of evidence, as would support dismissal as sanction as well as a $65,000 monetary sanction against employee. Leon v. IDX Systems Corporation, 464 F.3d 951 (CA 9 2006). No related posts. Related posts brought to you [...]
No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://yarpp.org'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not an FMLA case but worth noting.  Employee&#8217;s destruction of data on his employer-owned laptop amounted to willful spoliation of evidence, as would support dismissal as sanction as well as a $65,000 monetary sanction against employee.</p>
<p>Leon v. IDX Systems Corporation, 464 F.3d 951 (CA 9 2006).</p>
<p>No related posts.</p>
<p>Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://yarpp.org'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://fmla-law.com/2007/05/17/employees-spoliation-of-data-warranted-dismissal-and-65000-sanction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can a parent of adult child take FMLA leave to care for the adult child?</title>
		<link>http://fmla-law.com/2007/02/08/can-a-parent-of-adult-child-take-fmla-leave-to-care-for-the-adult-child/</link>
		<comments>http://fmla-law.com/2007/02/08/can-a-parent-of-adult-child-take-fmla-leave-to-care-for-the-adult-child/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:14:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>fmlalaw</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fmla-law.com/?p=13</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Regulations to the FMLA indicate that such leave can be taken under the FMLA if the adult child is incapable of self care. 29 C.F.R. section 825.113(c)(1) and (2). (c) Son or daughter means a biological, adopted, or foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis, [...]
No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://yarpp.org'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regulations to the FMLA indicate that such leave can be taken under the FMLA if the adult child is incapable of self care.</p>
<p>29 C.F.R. section 825.113(c)(1) and (2).<br />
(c) Son or daughter means a biological, adopted, or foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis, who is either under age 18, or age 18 or older and incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability.</p>
<p>(1) Incapable of self-care means that the individual requires active assistance or supervision to provide daily self-care in three or more of the activities of daily living (ADLs) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). Activities of daily living include adaptive activities such as caring appropriately for one&#8217;s grooming and hygiene, bathing, dressing and eating. Instrumental activities of daily living include cooking, cleaning, shopping, taking public transportation, paying bills, maintaining a residence, using telephones and directories, using a post office, etc. </p>
<p>(2) Physical or mental disability means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual. Regulations at 29 C.F.R. section 1630.2(h), (i), and (j), issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. section 12101 et seq., define these terms. </p>
<p>No related posts.</p>
<p>Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://yarpp.org'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://fmla-law.com/2007/02/08/can-a-parent-of-adult-child-take-fmla-leave-to-care-for-the-adult-child/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employee within public agency subject to individual liability under FMLA</title>
		<link>http://fmla-law.com/2007/01/19/employee-within-public-agency-subject-to-individual-liability-under-fmla/</link>
		<comments>http://fmla-law.com/2007/01/19/employee-within-public-agency-subject-to-individual-liability-under-fmla/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:25:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>fmlalaw</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fmla-law.com/?p=10</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a matter of first impression, employee within a public agency could be held individually liable under the FMLA. If a public employee acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer, he satisfies the definition of employer under the FMLA, and therefore, may be subject to liability in his individual capacity. Modica v. [...]
No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://yarpp.org'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a matter of first impression, employee within a public agency could be held individually liable under the FMLA.  If a public employee acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer, he satisfies the definition of employer under the FMLA, and therefore, may be subject to liability in his individual capacity. </p>
<p>Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174 (C.A.5 (Tex.),2006).</p>
<p>No related posts.</p>
<p>Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://yarpp.org'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://fmla-law.com/2007/01/19/employee-within-public-agency-subject-to-individual-liability-under-fmla/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

