My husband's Employee handbook states he is eligible to use his accrued sick time or vacation time to compensate him for his time off with FMLA. Is there a limit to FMLA time he can use if he takes off to spend time with me after I have our baby?

His current managment (From regional on down to location) seem to be very negative and mention that they hope he's not planning on taking 'too much time off' when the baby comes. Also if he wants to take a portion of the FMLA time when the baby first comes and a few weeks later when I return to work are there any legal restrictions that would not allow him to take time off the second time?

My husband spoke with corporate HR today and was told that he did qualify for FMLA due to time with the company and hours worked, and that he would have to use any accrued time to recieve pay while on FMLA before going on unpaid status. They asked why he would need FMLA and if he could give advanced notice he said he was wanting to take FMLA for the birth of a child. He was then told that his FMLA time for that purpose is at his supervisor's descretion and that since he's "just the father" he doesn't really need to take any time. And that the duration of his time off on FMLA would be determined by his supervisor and his location's needs. To us that doesn't seem right and seems to contradict the handbook section that applies to FMLA for birth of a child.


His handbook states that "Wligible employees may request FMLA leave for one (1) or more of the following qualifying circumstances.

1. Birth or adoption of child.
2. Care of a seriously ill or injured immediate family member (defined by statute).
3. Serious personal illness or injury."

So do we just wait and see what they agree to do once the baby is born or do we contact the DOL in advance to protect him from retaliation for causing a 'stir'?

FMLA grants up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for the birth of a newborn.
However, employees eligible for fmla do not have to be granted 12 weeks. Employers must grant the time that is requested on the medical certification of the doctor. So if your doctor certifies that you need to be out for six weeks, that is all the time that the employer has to grant by law.
(Many people will request the full 12 weeks)

FMLA and pto/disability benefits are not mutually exclusive. One can be out on fmla and still be getting paid via pto or a disability benefit, or take the leave unpaid.

If he takes fmla and returns to work, then he would need to re-certify the medical reason for taking leave again, and the certification must be related to a serious health condition. (you, him, or baby)

Just as an fyi, dont take more time that you (and he) actually need. Remember, you are only alloted 12 weeks per 12 months. If something should happen within that 12 months and you need more leave, you would not have it to protect you if you had previously exhausted it.
I just saw your other post. No his fmla rights are not up to the discretion of his supervisor. FMLA does not discriminate between men and women and WHO is giving birth.

When FMLA leave is taken for the purpose of bonding/caring for a newborn child you do not need a medical certification, you are entitled to the full 12 weeks of leave but it has to be used within the first year of the birth/placement of your child. (Note: Intermittent/Reduced Schedule Leave for this purpose would need to be approved by management)

I hate to pepper this post with more questions. But we just got the FMLA applications via email from his employer. The first thing that jumped out at us is that the Application for LOA must be approved by his Supervisor before being submitted to HR. Is this a standard practice? And are we correct in assuming that we'd have to get in touch with DOL if they deny his request for FMLA.

His company requires 30 day minimum notice if possible for FMLA requests which is why we're doing it now.

Thanks again for your help.

Yes you would contact the dol for fmla violations, wage and hour division.

Even if the supervisor has to be involved in the leave process, it cant be denied based on the fact that "he is just the father"

I have not seen a provision in the fmla statute for bonding with the newborn, can you point me in the right direction? :)

It's there. Both parents are entitled to FMLA leave for bonding purposes, although if both parents work for the same company, they are restricted to 12 weeks between them, not 12 weeks apiece.

Just one minor clarification. If the time is for bonding with the baby (read child care), it must be taken within the baby's first year of life. If Dad wants to take some time for the birth and some time later in the year, then it would qualify. A medical cert stating a medical reason for leave would not be necessary as there isn't one, though proof of the date of birth and possibly paternity could be. Taking leave intermittently however, would be at the descretion of the employer.

(a) IN GENERAL.--
(1) ENTITLEMENT TO LEAVE.--Subject to section 103, an eligible employee shall be entitled to a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following:
(A) Because of the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and in order to care for such son or daughter.
(B) Because of the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care.
(C) In order to care for the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, daughter, or parent has a serious health condition.
(D) Because of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.
(2) EXPIRATION OF ENTITLEMENT.--The entitlement to leave under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) for a birth or placement of a son or daughter shall expire at the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of such birth or placement.
(b) LEAVE TAKEN INTERMITTENTLY OR ON A REDUCED LEAVE SCHEDULE.
(1) IN GENERAL.--Leave under subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1) shall not be taken by an employee intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule unless the employee and the employer of the employee agree otherwise. Subject to paragraph (2), subsection (e)(2), and section 103(b)(5), leave under subparagraph (C) or (D) of subsection (a)(1) may be taken intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule when medically necessary. The taking of leave intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule pursuant to this paragraph shall not result in a reduction in the total amount of leave to which the employee is entitled under subsection (a) beyond the amount of leave actually taken.
(2) ALTERNATIVE POSITION.-- If an employee requests intermittent leave, or leave on a reduced leave schedule, under subparagraph (C) or (D) of subsection (a)(1), that is foreseeable based on planned medical treatment, the employer may require such employee to transfer temporarily to an available alternative position offered by the employer for which the employee is qualified and that--
(A) has equivalent pay and benefits; and
(B) better accommodates recurring periods of leave than the regular employment position of the employee.

That really made it clear. I think that clears it all up!