
On January 15, 2021, in the case of Scalia v. Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 985 F.3d 742 (2021), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal decided that for an employee, who works a rotational schedule of seven days on, followed by seven days off, both his “on” and “off” weeks shall be used to calculate the length of “12 workweeks of leave” under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). As such, when a rotational employee takes continuous leave, both his on and off weeks count toward his “workweeks of leave” under Section 2612(a)(1) of the FMLA.
Factual background
The Alaska Marine Highway System (“Alaska”) employs both “traditional” employees, who work a regular 40 hour schedule, five days each week, and “rotational” employees, who work 80 hours one week and no hours the next week. Regardless of schedules, over a one year time period, both types of employees work the same hours and receive the same compensation.
Legal issue
The FMLA grants eligible employees “a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period” to attend to qualifying family and medical needs. 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1). When a rotational employee working a “one week on, one week off” schedule took 12 workweeks of continuous leave under the FMLA, Alaska required the employee to return to work 12 weeks later because it counted both the “on” and “off” weeks against the employee’s FMLA leave entitlement. The Secretary of Labor for the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) brought suit against Alaska for violating the FMLA. The DOL stated that a rotational employee should return to work 24 weeks later, because the rotational employee’s off weeks cannot be counted as “workweeks of leave” under Section 2612(a)(1) since “there is no work to take leave from when an employee is not scheduled to work.”
Outcome of lower court proceedings
At the District Court, the DOL prevailed because the court held that the term “workweek” refers to “time that an employee is actually required to be at work.” Alaska appealed.
Analysis of “workweek” by the Ninth Circuit
Acknowledging that both the DOL and Alaska agreed that the issue on appeal was the meaning of the term “workweek,” the Ninth Circuit began its analysis by noting that Congress enacted the FMLA without defining the term “workweek.”
However, the Ninth Circuit found that Congress previously used the term “workweek” in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. In the FLSA’s regulations, the DOL construed the term “workweek” to mean a fixed period of seven consecutive days. “Once the beginning time of an employee’s workweek is established, it remains fixed regardless of the schedule of hours worked by [the employee].” 29 C.F.R. § 778.105 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit explained that the italicized text from the FLSA regulations makes clear that a “workweek” is not contingent on the employee’s own work schedule, but is simply a week-long period, predesignated by the employer, during which the employer is in operation.
The Ninth Circuit determined that Congress intended to borrow the “established meaning” of the term “workweek” from the FLSA for use in the FMLA, since both statutes afford employees certain minimum workplace protections. Further, the “workweek” definitions in both laws “provide a fixed, pre-established time period against which an employee’s entitlement to statutory benefits can be measured . . . .”
The Ninth Circuit explained that Congress’ intent to adopt the FLSA’s “workweek” definition is bolstered by Title II of the FMLA, which provides civil service employees with “a total of 12 administrative workweeks of leave during any 12-month period.” 5 U.S.C. § 6382(a)(1) (emphasis added). Civil service regulations define the term “administrative workweeks” as “a period of 7 consecutive calendar days designated in advance by the head of an agency,” which is “essentially equivalent” to the FLSA’s regulatory definition of “workweek.” The “administrative workweek” definition does not focus on an individual employee’s work schedule. Nothing in the FMLA’s text or structure indicates that Congress intended for the leave accorded to civil service employees and all other employees to be different.
The Ninth Circuit determined that the DOL’s interpretation of “workweeks” would create a “seemingly unjustified disparity in treatment between traditional and rotational employees.” The Ninth Circuit said it is inexplicable why Congress would have granted an advantage to rotational employees over traditional employees simply because rotational employees worked 80 hours in one week versus two weeks.
In sum, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the term “workweek” in Section 2612(a)(1) has the same meaning as used under the FLSA. The “workweek” is a fixed, pre-established period of seven consecutive days when the employer is operating. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit held that Alaska may insist that rotational employees who take 12 workweeks of continuous leave return to work 12 weeks later.
Take-Away for California Businesses
If you are a business with employees who work a rotational schedule, the Scalia decision should be considered in determining when an employee, who takes a continuous leave under the FMLA, must return to work. Please reach out to the Author of this Alert or your usual AALRR counsel with any questions.
- Partner
Catherine Lee specializes in employment, financial institution, and complex commercial litigation as well as data security and privacy.
Ms. Lee counsels and represents employers of all sizes. She has prevailed in state and ...
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- President Biden’s Administration Halts Department of Labor’s Final Rule for Worker Classification
- Rotational Employees Can Have Their “On” And “Off” Weeks Counted Against Their FMLA Leave Entitlement
- Ninth Circuit Issues Important Decision on Per Diem Pay
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Victory for Trucking Industry: California Meal and Rest Break Rules Preempted by Federal Law as to Commercial Drivers
- They Say Never Discuss Politics In Polite Company, But How Can Employers Handle Impolitic Off-Duty Conduct?
- DOL Permits Back-of-the-Restaurant Staff to Share in Servers’ Tips
- Can California Employers Be Liable For Failure To Prevent Something That Never Happened?
- Employer’s Delay is Fatal to Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement
- California Employers: The federal Department Of Labor’s Final Rule For Worker Classifications Does Not Eliminate The Requirements Under California’s ABC Test
- Court Holds California Law Applies to Offshore Workers on Oil Platforms
Popular Categories
- (43)
- (40)
- (135)
- (22)
- (6)
- (6)
- (31)
- (26)
- (22)
- (14)
- (5)
- (6)
- (4)
- (3)
- (3)
- (14)
- (9)
- (2)
- (2)
- (1)
- (3)
- (1)
- (3)
- (1)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Christopher S. Andre
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Sarkis A. Atoyan
- Alicia A. Belock
- Eddy R. Beltran
- Rex Darrell Berry
- William M. Betley
- Brigham M. Cheney
- Michele L. Collender
- Kevin R. Dale
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- William A. Diedrich
- Alfonso Estrada
- Lauren D. Fierro
- Paul S. Fleck
- Robert Fried
- L. Brent Garrett
- Carol A. Gefis
- Kieran D. Hartley
- Amber S. Healy
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Joshua N. Lange
- Catherine M. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- David M. Lester
- Martin S. Li
- Mia A. Lomedico
- Jorge J. Luna
- Michael J. Morphew
- Ronald W. Novotny
- Michael J. O'Connor, Jr.
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Justin R. Peters
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Casandra P. Secord
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Lauren B. Shelby
- Ann K. Smith
- Amber M. Solano
- Susana P. Solano
- Ethan G. Solove
- Susan M. Steward
- April Szabo
- Jay G. Trinnaman
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Robert L. Wenzel
- Brian M. Wheeler
- Glen A. Williams
- Kimberley A. Worley
- Lisa C. Zaradich
Archives
2021
2020
- December 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
2019
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
2018
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
2017
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
2016
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
2015
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
2011
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011