The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requires that an employee that takes FMLA leave be returned to an equivalent position when they return to work. But what determines whether a position is equivalent or not? There is guidance in the Code of Federal Regulations that states as follows:
- An equivalent position is one that is virtually identical to the emloyee's former position in terms of pay, benefits, and working conditions, including privileges, perquisites and status. 29 CFR 825.215(a).
- An equivalent position "must involve the same or substantially similar duties and responsibilities, which must entail substantially skill, effort, responsibility and authority." Id.
- But this does not mean every little last thing must be the same: "The requirement that an employee be restored to the same or equivalent job does not extend to de minimis, intangible, or unmeasurable aspects of the job." 29 CFR 825.215(f).
Paula Crawford claimed that she had not been restored to an equivalent position with JP Morgan Chase bank when she returned from FMLA leave. Crawford's previous position was as Program Manager I, a job that called upon legal training that she had. When she returned from FMLA leave, Crawford was placed in the position of Quality Analyst II, which had equal pay and benefits. She claimed her opportunities for advancement were reduced.
The Sixth Circuit, in reversing a summary judgment granted the employer by the district court, ruled that Crawford had presented a fact issue for a jury as to equivalency. The court explained as follows:
Even if both positions carried equal pay and benefits, if the Quality Analyst II position did not require a similar level of training and education, then it was not equivalent in terms of status and thus the positions would not be equivalent under the FMLA. See Donahoo v. Master Data Center, 282 F.Supp. 2d 540, 552 (ED Mich 2003)(finding that an employer did not reinstate the employee to equivalent position when the pay and benefits were equivalent, but the new position was not as sophisticated and did not require the same level of training and education.). Because status and duties are a part of the equivalence inquiry, a reasonable fact-finder could determine that the positions were not equivalent. Parker v. Hanhemann University Hospital, 234 F.Supp.2d 478, 491 (D. NJ 2002).
