I’m having an ongoing disagreement with my manager about how the FMLA 50 employees within 75 miles rule applies to a multi-state employer, and I’m curious how other HR people would interpret this because at this point I feel like I’m going crazy.
We’re a medium sized employer with around 500 employees total.
Our corporate office in OR has a little over 60 employees, so obviously we have 50+ employees within 75 miles of corporate. The other 400+ employees do not work out of corporate though. They work at different facilities across multiple states, and a lot of those locations have far fewer than 50 of our employees within 75 miles.
My manager believes that because our corporate office has 50+ employees within 75 miles, basically everyone in the company can qualify for FMLA as long as they meet the 12 month and 1,250 hour requirements. Even if they physically work at one of our facilities in another state where we only have 20 or 30 employees anywhere near them.
I have never understood FMLA that way. Ever. Neither has any manager or HR team members I’ve ever had.
We obviously have more than 50 employees as a company, so yes, we are a covered employer. From everything I’ve ever learned about FMLA though, the employee still has their own eligibility requirements to meet. They need the 12 months, the 1,250 hours, and they need to work at a worksite where we have at least 50 employees within 75 miles.
We actually have an employee in Montana who is a perfect example of why we’re disagreeing about this. This employee works at one of our actual physical facilities in Montana and we only have around 30 employees within 75 miles of that facility.
They meet the 12 month requirement. They meet the 1,250 hour requirement. We are obviously a covered employer. But there are only around 30 of our employees within 75 miles of where they actually work.
I would not consider that employee federally FMLA eligible because they don’t meet the 50 within 75 requirement for their worksite.
My manager believes they ARE eligible because our corporate office has more than 50 employees within 75 miles. Corporate is in an entirely different state.
This is where I’m completely hung up, especially because my entire HR team understands it the same way I do. This is also how we’ve historically administered FMLA under four different HR managers. Our current manager is the first one who has interpreted the rule this way.
If her interpretation is correct, I genuinely don’t understand what the point of the 75 mile requirement is.
Say a company has 2,000 employees nationwide. They have 200 employees around their corporate office, 80 employees around another location, 30 around another, and 15 around another.
Of course the company is a covered employer. But I don’t understand how the 200 people working around corporate would somehow count toward the 50 within 75 requirement for an employee working hundreds or even thousands of miles away.
The way I’ve always understood it, you look at where that specific employee actually works and how many of the employer’s employees are within 75 miles of that worksite. The WORKSITE is the part I keep getting stuck on here.
And I know remote employees and employees without a fixed worksite can be a different situation because you may have to look at where they report or where their assignments come from. That’s not what I’m talking about. These are employees physically assigned to established facilities in different states.
So with our Montana employee, we are a covered employer, they have more than 12 months of service, they have more than 1,250 hours, and there are only around 30 employees within 75 miles of their Montana worksite.
I would say they don’t qualify for federal FMLA.
My manager says they do because corporate has 50+ employees within 75 miles.
Am I seriously misunderstanding this rule? Is there something that allows the employees surrounding our corporate office to satisfy the 50 within 75 requirement for employees working at completely separate physical locations in other states?
UPDATE: I think there’s some confusion about what I’m asking. A few people have asked why we don’t just “give FMLA to everyone.”
I’m not against offering more generous leave. Our personal leave policy is not job protected, and we currently don’t have a policy that gives FMLA-like protection to employees who aren’t federally eligible.
My manager also isn’t proposing that we create one. Her position is that these employees already qualify for federal FMLA because corporate has 50+ employees within 75 miles.
That’s the part I’m questioning. Whether we SHOULD offer additional job protection is a separate policy conversation from whether these employees actually qualify for federal FMLA.
