What's Coming Up in May?
2002 Chapter Dues: They’re Due!
HR Career Development SIG Chairperson Needed!
An Invitation to Join Dulles SHRM
Monthly E-Mail Flyers
Board Meeting Minutes
International Coach Federation/Richmond Area Coaches Association
Mark Your Calendars
Meeting Sponsors Wanted for July and August!
Chapter Discussion Groups
Meeting Evaluations Coming
HR Leadership Awards of Greater Washington
Supreme Court Strikes Controversial FMLA Regulation
Check Out Previous Newsletters
What's Coming Up in May?
Emotional Intelligence . . . Flavor of the Week or Fundamental for Success?
Have you ever known someone who seemed highly intelligent, technically brilliant, but limited in their potential success because they could not communicate effectively, build relationships, or inspire others? The lack of such skills or “Emotional Intelligence” is what keeps people from reaching their full potential. In fact, Emotional Intelligence (EQ) factors are more than two times likely to predict success in leaders than technical skills and IQ combined.
Join us at our dinner meeting on Wednesday, May 15 to learn more about the relevance of Emotional Intelligence and how you can transfer it from theoretical concepts to practical, everyday skills. In this “highly dramatic and experiential session,” Jennell Evans, M.E. Hart, and David Swink from Strategic Interactions, Inc., will use their cutting-edge methodology - live simulations - to explore the impact of Emotional Intelligence, how it can be learned, and why such competencies are vital to success.
And Meet Our May Sponsor - AH&T’s John Beveridge
2002 Chapter Dues: They’re Due!
If you don’t know whether you’ve paid your 2002 Chapter dues, please check with Nathalie Laforet tonight! If you have not yet paid, we urge you to renew as soon as possible by sending your $25 check to Treasurer Nathalie Laforet, Dulles SHRM, P.O. Box 1249, Herndon, VA 20171-1249. Or you may renew at the April 17 dinner meeting. Don’t miss this opportunity to be included in the 2002 Dulles SHRM Membership Directory to be published in late spring.
HR Career Development SIG Chairperson Needed!
If you attended our dinner meeting in March, you’ll recall a suggestion from member Bernadette Gebhardt, Human Resources Manager at Martin’s Herend Imports, Inc., who requested that the Board consider a means of providing guidance to members on advancing their HR careers and addressing specific challenges, including advice on traditional and non-traditional HR career paths. Based on Bernadette’s suggestion, the Board decided at the April Board Meeting to form an HR Career Development SIG [special interest group], the first SIG for Dulles SHRM. The Charter is as follows:
The charter of the HR Career Development SIG is to support, advise, and mentor Dulles SHRM members in making decisions that advance their HR careers. Members who have pursued both traditional and non-traditional career paths provide general information as well as assistance in addressing specific challenges faced by individual group members. The group addresses such questions as “Where am I?” “What do I need to do to get ahead?” “What experience, degrees, certifications, and memberships will advance my career and enhance my employability?” The group is headed by an appointed chairperson, a position that rotates annually, and meets bimonthly. The core group consists of the chairperson and several senior HR professionals. Attendance is open to the membership and interested guests.
Please contact President Nancy Streeter (nabs@aol.com) if you would be interested in serving as the SIG’s first chairperson.
Board Meeting Minutes
The minutes from the Board meetings are available on our web site - please take a few minutes to review them in full. Click Here to View.
An Invitation to Join Dulles SHRM -- “The Best Kept Secret in the Community”
In an effort to increase our membership, the Board has voted to send invitation postcards to SHRM national members in our area who are not members of Dulles SHRM. The postcards will highlight Dulles SHRM as ”the best kept secret in the community” and invite potential members to “get involved and join us” to learn about hot topics, hear great speakers, network, and win super door prizes.
Monthly E-Mail Flyers
As a Dulles Chapter member, you receive both e-mail flyers and a hard copy flyer by U.S. mail each month. Unfortunately, many of our e-mail flyers are being returned. If you are not receiving an e-mail flyer, please contact Sharon Hymanson (Nlaforet@firstunion2.com) and provide your correct e-mail address.
International Coach Federation/Richmond Area Coaches Association
The Richmond Area Coaches Association and the International Coach Federation are sponsoring an upcoming coaching conference in our state. The conference will be held April 19-21 in Richmond at the Crowne Plaza Richmond and will include a pre-conference workshop for those interested in starting or building their coaching practice, over 20 concurrent sessions for experienced and aspiring coaches, and nationally recognized keynote speakers and workshop leaders. Check out the program and register online at www.GreaterRichmondCoaches.com.
Mark Your Calendars
Upcoming SHRM conferences and seminars:
- SHRM 54th Annual Conference & Exposition, June 23-26, 2002, Philadelphia, PA
- 2002 VA SHRM State Conference, October 9-11, 2002 in Roanoke, VA
Upcoming Meeting Topics
Upcoming meeting topics:
- May 15 - "Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace" with Jennell Evans of Strategic Interactions
- June 19 - "Traits, Customs, and Practices Found in the 100 Best Companies to Work for in America" with Scott Cawood of the Great Places to Work Institute
- July 17 - "Governmental Affairs Update" with Deron Zeppelin of SHRM National
- August 21 - "Update on Current Immigration Issues" with Priscilla Muhlenkamp and Ryan Freel of Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, PC
- September 18 - “Latest Trends in HR Technologies,” a panel presentation with representatives from the consulting world, private industry, SHRM HRTX, and academia
- October 16 - Leadership with Book Signing with Dr. Virginia Bianco-Mathis
- November 20 - “Annual Benefits Update” with Dave Downer, The Segal Group
- December 4 - Holiday Party with everyone
Meeting Sponsors Wanted for July and August!
Amy Lourenco (alourenco@va.rr.com), Assistant Vice President, Membership, has been extremely successful in signing up sponsors for our dinner meetings this year, but we have still have sponsorship openings remaining for July and August. If your organization would be interested in sponsoring one of our meetings OR you know a vendor or other organization that would be interested in reaching 50-60 human resources professionals at one of our dinner meetings, please contact Amy.
The benefits of sponsoring a Dulles SHRM meeting include:
- Direct contact at the meeting with anywhere from 50-60 chapter members.
- Exposure on the Dulles SHRM website with a mention about being the sponsor, a brief description of what the company does, and a link to the company's website.
- Table set up next to the registration table during the reception/networking time prior to the meeting.
- A mention in the meeting flyer about the company and its website address.
- An introduction at the meeting with an opportunity to briefly overview the company’s products or services.
The cost is only $250 for members and $500 for non-members
Chapter Discussion Groups
“Business Planning/Strategic Planning” With Rich Stacy
Dulles SHRM’s monthly Discussion Groups are an excellent tool for learning about the latest trends and workplace practices across a variety of hot HR topics.
Discussion groups meet monthly and anyone is invited. Typically about a dozen chapter members attend. There is no charge. Just be sure to contact Cindy Loison (cindy.loison@lafarge-na.com ) or (703) 480-3706) ahead of time so we expect you. Also contact Cindy for the exact meeting location. Click Here to check out our 2002-2003 Discussion Group schedule.
Our topic for Thursday, May 9 is:
“Business Planning/Strategic Planning”
Facilitator: Rich Stacy, Principal, R&K Consultants
Location: To Be Determined
Meeting Evaluations Are Here
Vice President, Programs Cindy Loison and Assistant Vice President, Programs and Sponsorship Coordinator Amy Lourenco begin soliciting your feedback at the next dinner meeting.
The new meeting evaluations are available at your table, and we encourage you to complete it before you leave tonight. In addition to gaining additional points for us on the 2002 Chapter Activity Plan, your comments will provide excellent feedback for our speakers and hopefully give Cindy and Amy good ideas on topics that you’d like to see us cover in the months ahead as they begin working on the 2003 Program year. Please tell us what’s on your mind!
HR Leadership Awards of Greater Washington
Be sure to mark your calendars for the HR Leadership Awards Gala to be held on Wednesday, June 5 at the McLean Hilton. The reception begins at 6 p.m. and the dinner and program begin at 7 p.m. with closing at 10 p.m. The awards have been established to recognize exemplary leadership and significant contributions of HR professionals.
Awards will be given in four categories:
- HR Professional Excellence - Commercial/For-Profit
- HR Professional Excellence - Government/Non-Profit
- Community Service/Corporate Social Responsibility
- Ethics in Business
To register for the Gala, visit www.hrleadership.org.
Supreme Court Strikes Controversial FMLA Regulation
This article was written and submitted by Keith Fischler of Thelen Reid & Priest LLP (kfischler@thelenreid.com). The Supreme Court decision discussed in the article struck the DOL’s regulation stating that if employers fail to give proper notice to their employees designating leave as chargeable under the FMLA, the time would not count toward the employee’s 12-week allowance.
In a 5-4 decision dated March 19, 2002, the Supreme Court invalidated one of the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) most controversial regulations interpreting the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA” or “the Act”). The FMLA allows employees who meet certain eligibility requirements to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to address their own or their family’s medical needs.
Pursuant to its responsibility for enforcing the Act, DOL has published regulations requiring employers to notify their employees when an absence will be treated as “FMLA leave” and charged against their twelve-week allotment. 29 C.F.R. § 825.208 (2001). The DOL regulations require employers to provide written notice, which must include specific information about the employees’ rights and responsibilities. Further, the regulations require an employer to provide such notice within two business days after receiving a request from the employee for leave, if possible. 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(c) (2001).
In Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., No. 00-6029 (U.S. March 19, 2002), Wolverine World Wide, Inc. (“Wolverine” or “the Company”) challenged the section of the regulations that imposed a penalty for failing to comply with this requirement. According to the contested regulation, if an employer failed to provide proper notice, the leave could not count against the employee’s allotment. 29 C.F.R. § 825.700(a) (2001) (“[i]f an employee takes paid or unpaid leave and the employer does not designate the leave as FMLA leave, the leave taken does not count against the employee’s FMLA entitlement”) (emphasis added). Thus, under section 825.700, an employer would be obligated to grant more than the statutory twelve weeks of leave if it failed to provide satisfactory notice.
Background
Tracy Ragsdale was first employed at the Wolverine factory in 1995. She became ill in 1996 and took leave under Wolverine’s policy. This policy allowed employees to take up to seven months’ leave for medical reasons. Wolverine initially granted Ragsdale a leave of absence for one month, and then six 30-day extensions. Ultimately she took the full seven months, during which time Wolverine paid her health insurance premiums and kept her position available.
In September 1996, Ragsdale requested a seventh extension, which the Company denied because it would have exceeded the Company’s policy. Wolverine also denied her request for additional accommodations, including part-time work. When she did not return to work, Wolverine terminated her employment.
Ragsdale sued in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. She claimed that Wolverine had failed to comply with the DOL regulation and could not designate her leave as chargeable under the FMLA. Therefore, she argued that the 30 weeks she had taken did not count against her statutory entitlement and she remained eligible for 12 more weeks of leave.
Both parties moved for summary judgment. Wolverine conceded that it failed to provide Ragsdale with specific notice that her leave would count as FMLA leave. It argued, however, that it had already allowed her 30 weeks of leave, more than twice the requirement. The District Court agreed. It found that the regulation conflicted with the statutory language and, therefore, was invalid. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
The Majority Decision
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, agreed that the regulation was impermissible. He recognized that the Court owes deference to an agency when it is administering a statute it is charged to enforce. That deference, however, has limits. The Court should not defer to administrative action that is “arbitrary, capricious or manifestly contrary to the statute.” Section 825.700 was so inconsistent with the text of the FMLA that it could not be enforced.
Justice Kennedy began by explaining the FMLA’s enforcement procedure. To prove a violation of the Act, an employee must establish (1) that the employer interfered with, restrained or denied his/her exercise of FMLA rights: and (2) that the employee was actually damaged as a result of this violation. No employee is entitled to relief under the Act unless he/she was prejudiced by the employer’s conduct. See 29 U.S.C. § 2617.
Section 825.700 fundamentally altered this scheme. It relieved the employee of the obligation to show prejudice. Instead, it imposed liability in any circumstance in which notice was not given, regardless of the effect (or lack thereof) on the employee’s conduct.
In Ragsdale, the Court faulted DOL for ignoring critical, undisputed facts. It was of no relevance that Ragsdale was unable to return to work for substantially more than 12 weeks, that Wolverine allowed her 30 weeks off from work to recover and that she was not medically able to return to work for several months after her employment was terminated. According to the Court, even if Wolverine had complied fully with the FMLA notice provisions, Ragsdale still would have taken the full 30 weeks of leave. She would not have returned to work any more quickly or taken a different course of action if she had received notice.
As a result of this failure to look at the specific facts of the case, DOL impermissibly transformed Wolverine’s failure to provide notice and its refusal to grant Ragsdale more than 30 weeks of leave into a violation of the FMLA, requiring an additional 12 workweeks of leave. Justice Kennedy held that this analysis lacked a crucial step. By eliminating the requirement that Ragsdale establish that she was specifically harmed by the lack of the notice or that she could have kept her job but for Wolverine’s failure to provide this notice, DOL granted Ragsdale benefits that exceeded Congress’ intent in enacting FMLA.
For the same reasons, the Court rejected the government’s argument that the categorical penalty requiring an employer to grant additional leave is easier to administer than a fact-specific inquiry into how the employee would have responded if he/she had received proper notice. Congress specifically mandated a careful, case-by-case examination into the steps each employee would have taken, such as, when the employee would have to return to work from his/her leave. The Court ruled that DOL did not have the authority to rewrite congressional intent.
The majority raised two additional points. First, the Court noted that FMLA’s central provision - allowing employees 12 workweeks of leave in a 12-month period - was the result of a careful compromise. Groups representing employees’ interests wanted more leave time and employers’ groups sought to minimize workplace disruption. DOL subverted this compromise by allowing some employees additional leave, at least in certain circumstances.
The Court also noted that the Act includes a provision requiring employers to post a general notice informing employees of their FMLA rights. 29 U.S.C. § 2619. “Any employer that willfully violates this section may be assessed a civil monetary penalty not to exceed $100 for each separate offense.” 29 U.S.C. § 2619(b). According to the Court, Congress determined that this language established the appropriate penalty for failing to provide notice to employees. Section 825.700 is inconsistent with this statutory provision. It impermissibly imposes a more severe penalty, which applies in situations where the conduct was inadvertent, rather than willful.
For these reasons, the majority found that DOL exceeded its authority in promulgating section 825.700. It affirmed the Eighth Circuit’s ruling, invalidating the regulation and upholding the order granting Wolverine summary judgment.
The Dissenting Opinion
Justice O’Connor wrote in dissent, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. These Justices believed that regulation at issue was a reasonable exercise of DOL’s rulemaking authority and, as a result, the Court was obligated to defer. Justice O’Connor concluded that individual notices served an important goal underlying the FMLA’s statutory purpose. Such notices ensured that employees were aware of their rights and the protections created by the Act, at the very time when employees needed a reminder.
Further, the dissent rejected the majority’s argument that the threat of litigation to enforce the FMLA’s provisions would adequately motivate employers’ full compliance. The dissent believed that the best safeguard of employee rights is full knowledge, which could only be achieved through individual notices. In addition, such notices would ensure that employees are aware of the full range of options available to them, including the ability to take intermittent leave or to substitute paid vacation or sick leave for unpaid FMLA leave.
Based on these factors, the dissent concluded that the regulation was reasonable and within the scope of DOL’s authority. The dissent would have reversed the Eighth Circuit and remanded the case.
The Significance of Ragsdale
Employers have generally applauded this ruling. It eliminated a cumbersome provision of the FMLA regulations that increased the costs and burdens of administering most absence-management programs. Further, this regulation penalized employers who offered more than 12 weeks of leave for their employees and, thus, provided a disincentive for companies to provide greater benefits than the law required.
Although this decision will simplify employer’s efforts to comply with the FMLA, it does not eliminate the need to keep careful records and to make certain that employees understand their rights to time off in appropriate circumstances. Companies are no longer obligated to provide individual notices to ensure that leave time is chargeable under the FMLA. Both DOL and employees, however, retain the ability to bring enforcement actions in cases where they believe employers have interfered with individuals’ rights to take time off under the Act. Companies should ensure that they have properly posted all required notices at their work sites. They should also ensure that supervisors are properly trained regarding the FMLA’s obligations, so they are able to respond accurately to employee questions, requests for leave, and other issues arising under the Act.
That’s all for this month unless you have any ideas or suggestions? This is your chapter - let us know what’s on your mind!
Nancy Streeter
President
Dulles SHRM
E-mail
