IN THIS ISSUE:

1. Feature Story: FMLA Expands To Protect Military Family Members

2. Cathie's Corner: An Issue That's Nothing To Sneeze At

3. Undignified Send-Off Sends Ex-Employee Into Court

4. HR Soapbox: Buying A Day Off

Neckties are often thought of as a symbol of workplace professionalism. Today's man, however, is turning his nose up at the tie. According to a Gallup poll, only 6% of men are wearing neckties to work anymore. That's a 4% decline since 2002. Almost 70% of those polled said their disdain for neckties extends beyond the workplace; they won't tie on a tie for any reason.

Share The Knowledge: Forward this newsletter to a colleague.

Subscribe to AHI's Free E-Mail Newsletters: • HR Soapbox • Benefits Alert • Employment Law Today View samples and subscribe by visiting our website.

1. FEATURE STORY:
FMLA EXPANDS TO PROTECT MILITARY FAMILY MEMBERS

On January 28, President George W. Bush signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which expands the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in two important ways, both of which are intended to assist service members' families.

1. Active Duty Leave. Eligible employees with a spouse, child, or parent who is on, or has been called to, active duty in the Armed Forces may take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave upon experiencing a "qualifying exigency." The term qualifying exigency is yet to be defined; the Department of Labor (DOL) is expected to issue proposed regulations in the coming weeks that will do just that.

When the need for leave is foreseeable, the employee must provide the employer with "reasonable and practicable" notice. Also, an employer may require that a request for leave be supported by certification.

2. Caregiver Leave. Eligible employees who are the spouse, child, parent, or "nearest blood relative" of a service member who has incurred a "serious illness or injury" while on active duty in the Armed Forces are permitted to take up to 26 weeks of unpaid leave in a single 12-month period to care for the injured service member.

A serious illness or injury is defined as one that was incurred in the line of active duty that renders the service person medically unfit to perform the duties of his/her office, grade, rank, or rating.

Here, too, an employer can request certification of the need for leave.

Note: Both active duty leave and caregiver leave can be taken on an intermittent or reduced leave basis. In addition, an employee may elect, or an employer may require the employee, to substitute accrued paid leave for either active duty or caregiver leave.

The National Defense Authorization Act was effective upon the President's signing, but it is not clear when the provisions amending the FMLA will be effective. The DOL is expected to issue clarifying regulations in the coming weeks. Until then, employers are encouraged to review and revise their family leave policies as necessary.

2. CATHIE'S CORNER:
AN ISSUE THAT'S NOTHING TO SNEEZE AT

I heard a story last week that horrified me. An employee with asthma and fragrance allergies had asked some of her co-workers to please refrain from wearing perfume or scented hand lotion while in the same room with her. She did not ask them to stop wearing it altogether, only when they were in the room with her. Rather than comply, however, her co-workers went out of their way to use more than usual in order to "test" her asthma. This resulted in the employee missing several days of work and needing steroid shots.

It amazes me that her co-workers believe that their right to wear scents overrides her right to breathe. It also amazes me that a number of employers evidently think it is unreasonable to implement a fragrance-free workplace.

This is a hot button item for me since I also have several scent allergies. Mine are not as severe as the employee in the situation above; I'd end up with a headache, but not one so severe as to require medical attention. But it's bad enough for me to be very sympathetic to the woman.

While it would seem logical that an allergy severe enough to require the employee to miss several days of work and to need medical intervention would invoke the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), court decisions on this have been all over the map. While there haven't been consistent decisions from state to state or circuit to circuit, it would seem to me that you're better off assuming that the ADA may apply and at least investigate the possibility of providing an accommodation of some sort.

What you can do is, of course, situational. You may or may not be able to allow an employee to work from home. You may or may not be able to put the employee in an isolated office. You may or may not be able to implement a ban on the fragrances the employee is allergic to. You may or may not be able to provide the employee with a mask or a filter.

If it turns out that there is no accommodation you can make, of course you don't have to do so. And you might find, in your investigation, that the ADA simply does not apply. Not every case of allergies will; not even every case of fragrance allergies will. But for some reason, many people simply don't believe in the existence of fragrance allergies or that the ADA would ever apply, and assume that the employee just doesn't like the fragrance or is trying to show her power.

And none of this is getting into the issue of employees who will torture a co-worker in order to "prove" to her that she does not have a medical condition that she clearly does have. I don't think I ought say publicly what I'd like to do to these employees. I certainly hope that any of us who learned that one of their employees was being deliberately tormented to the point where they had to take medical leave would take disciplinary action against the tormenters. Even without a company policy banning or limiting fragrances, to deliberately force a co-worker to inhale a fragrance they have requested they not be exposed to is just plain wrong. There is no right to wear perfume guaranteed in the Constitution.

I'm not telling you to give away the store, but where there's so little consistency in the way such allergies are seen, it just seems to me that you're on safer ground by assuming the ADA may apply and treating the situation accordingly. Not to mention that a little courtesy can go a long way!

Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.

UNDIGNIFIED SEND-OFF SENDS EX-EXPLOYEE INTO COURT

It's a management must to scrutinize every termination decision through and through before you actually carry them out, since claims of discriminatory termination most often hinge on who receives a pink slip (or not). But that's not enough to ward off discrimination demons...View the full story on our website.

Kick back, relax, and take a few minutes to check out the HR Soapbox, "Buying A Day Off," in which an editor discusses the ease of purchasing fraudulent absence documentation.