An analysis of the United States Supreme Court and the United States Courts of Appeals decisions on the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993: Their interpretations of the act as a tool for proper implementation of the act by employers

This study investigated the usefulness of decisions rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeals as support for employers and as instruments to assist in correct implementation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Through review of 8 cases heard by the Supreme Court and 277 cases heard by the Courts of Appeals, the researcher sought to determine whether these courts have sufficiently interpreted the elements of the FMLA to equip employers to avoid liability for violations. Five questions were probed to determine if judicial interpretation aided employer implementation of the Act. (1) Do employers have clear guidance for implementation of the Act? (2) Do the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeals adequately interpret the elements of the act, providing guidance to employers for its implementation? (3) Should Congress amend the Act to address avenues of abuse created by vague, ambiguous or too broad interpretations of the Act, which have allowed loopholes for abuse by employers and/or employees? (4) What defenses do employers have to protect themselves from liability associated with honest misinterpretation of the Act? (5) What particular implementation problems does the Act pose in its current state, which would eliminate or mitigate damages awards?; The data strongly suggest a need for clarification and amendment of the legislation, which could result in a decrease in employee abuse and offer broad protection to employers and employees alike, enabling both to benefit from costly implementation of the Act.