Proposed rules to revise family and medical leave act prompt debate over law

The Bush administration appears "intent on putting its stamp" on the Family and Medical Leave Act through rules that would increase restrictions, but the proposals face "fierce" opposition, the Washington Post reports.

FMLA, enacted in 1993, requires employers with at least 50 employees to offer 12 weeks per year of unpaid leave to workers who develop serious illnesses and to those who seek to care for newborns or family members with serious health conditions.

In February, the Department of Labor published proposed rules that would require employees to request FMLA leave in advance in foreseeable circumstances and allow employers to require some workers to obtain certification of fitness for duty from a physician before they return from leave. DOL as of Friday, when the public comment period on the rules ended, had received more than 4,000 comments on the regulations. Assistant Labor Secretary Victoria Lipnic said that the department proposed the rules to clarify FMLA and end some abuses of the law. Lipnic said that she hopes to finalize the rules this year, although Congress could delay or prevent implementation of the regulations through a refusal to fund them.

Employers maintain that "FMLA has too often been used to cover up tardiness or absenteeism," and some maintain that the rules "fall short of clearing up inconsistencies" in the law, according to the Post. However, supporters of FMLA maintain that the rules would "make it easier for employers to deny workers their leave" and that "letting employers consult with employees' doctors is a violation of privacy," the Post reports. According to the Post, any changes to FMLA "would have widespread impact," as almost seven million employees took leave under the law in 2005.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in recent months have proposed a number of bills that would extend unpaid and paid family leave to more U.S. residents. "Although Democrats control Congress, it is unclear how far such bills would go," as "getting past a Republican in the White House could prove difficult," the Post reports (Trejos, Washington Post, 4/24).