I Took Family medical leave for my son and was told that i had used all of my allowed, But there is a co worker that has been on leave much longer. The Co worker had a broken leg and was out form late aug to dec of 2005 straight. I have taken it intermidently thought a twelve month period. I was given a write-up and suspended for two days. When i asked the differance between my reason and the co worker i was told that the company has allowances for employees that go on FMLA for the full twelve weeks, I was wondering if the company is allowed to do that and if not what laws they are violating and what i can do about it.

Unless the difference between the two situations is based on a protected characteristic, and as long as you received the full time available to you under the law, this is legal.

Yes this is legal.

My son has a serious health condication which is protected by the flma law. So how can they choose to let one go for extended time and not afford others the same time. I thought Title IV covers that has a discrimination?

Title VII and related laws covers discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, gender, age (if over 40), pregnancy and disability. It does not say that all employees, without exception, have to be treated absolutely identically.

If the employers want to extend FMLA to some employees on a case by case basis but not to others, that is legal, as long as who gets an extention and who doesn't is not determined on one of the characteristics above, or one that may be protected under your state law. If you have exhausted your FMLA, your employer has no legal obligation to offer you any more. What he may or may not have offered someone else is not relevant to your situation.

In addition, if others were out due to their own serious health conditions, your employer may have been approving the extensions as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

I only ask because the person that was given more time only had a broken leg, he was given several weeks extra and i was writen up for only being shy a few hours of leave. I thought that if a broken leg was reason to extend the time then i should be allowed some reasonable consideration.

Discrimination
Federal law makes it illegal for most employers to fire an employee because of the employee's race, gender, national origin, disability, religion, or age (if the person is older than 40). Federal law also prohibits most employers from firing someone because that person is pregnant, has recently given birth, or has a related medical condition.
Most states also have anti-discrimination laws that prohibit firing for all of the reasons listed in the federal law. Many state laws, however, are broader than federal law, meaning they include additional prohibitions (for example, some state laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status), and they cover a wider range of employers. To learn more about your state anti-discrimination laws, contact your state fair employment office.

Precisely, however, nothing in any law entitles you to additional time beyond what is mandated by law for the serious health condition of a family member. No law requires absolute fairness as long as you aren't being discriminated against on the basis of any legally protected characteristic (which there is absolutely no eveidence of) and are granted all the leave you are entitled to under the law (which you have).

Employers are legally permitted to extend time to those out for their own health condition, and in some cases, may even be legally required to do so. There just isn't any such provision in the event you are out for a family member's illness.