The dispute in the case concerned part of the provisions of the Dol transposing the FMLA, which state that “workers may not renounce or induce employers to renounce their rights under the FMLA”. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.220 (d). The DOL was involved in the case to tell the court what it believed its own regulation meant. He informed the Tribunal that the regulation only prohibits employees from “prospectively” waiving their fmla rights, for example by serving, at the beginning of employment, a document that waives the right to file a complaint for FMLA violations that may occur in the future. The settlement does not prohibit severance pay agreements in which employees give up the right to complain about previous FMLA issues, such as the Taylor agreement, the DOL said. in the event of a breach of the FMLA, the use of their severance pay to finance the remedy. It also means that these employers cannot receive valid statements of waiver of potential FMLA claims from outgoing employees without including the DOL or a court – something no employer wants to do. Thus, employers in turn run the risk of either paying severance pay and subsequently being confronted with FMLA rights that they thought they had paid to avoid them, or submitting their employment decisions for review either to the DOL or to a court. Rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) may be removed in an exemption agreement, but the exemption agreement must meet all the requirements of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”). Unfortunately, violations of the OWBPA remain some of the most common mistakes made by employers in designing termination agreements.
Paylors` circumstances are different, the court concluded. The dismissal agreement she signed contained a downgrading of the specific rights she might have as a result of previous interventions or retaliation by Hartford, as expressly provided for in the text of the regulation. Paylor signed the agreement on the last business day, “thus removing any retrograde claims she might have had against her employer,” the panel said. Practical tip: Be sure to use another defined term for (i) the party that agrees to the payment of severance pay and (ii) the exempted parties. In this case, Hartford did not ask Paylor to waive any claims for future violations of the FMLA, but to release any claims it might have due to prior violations of the FMLA. All of the behavior Paylor complained about happened before he signed the termination agreement. . . .