535 U.S. 81 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002)
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc.
Does the Department of Labor's regulation, which categorically prevents employers from counting leave against an employee's 12-week FMLA entitlement when the employer failed to designate that leave as FMLA leave, validly implement the FMLA; and, absent such a regulation, is an employee entitled to additional leave without showing prejudice from the employer's notice failure?
Under the FMLA, eligible employees are entitled to 12 workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for specified reasons, including a serious health condition. 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1). The statute prohibits interference with the exercise of FMLA rights, § 2615, and provides remedies only for compensation, benefits, or other relief lost "by reason of" the violation, as well as equitable relief, § 2617(a)(1). The Secretary of Labor may issue regulations "necessary to carry out" the FMLA, § 2654, but may not adopt rules that alter the statute's substantive entitlements or remedial scheme. Accordingly, while employers have notice and designation obligations, an employee is entitled to relief for a notice/designation violation only upon a showing of prejudice caused by that violation; an agency may not impose an across-the-board additional-leave penalty untethered to prejudice.
The Supreme Court held that 29 C.F.R. § 825.700(a), which categorically barred employers from counting non-designated leave against the FMLA's 12-week entitlement, is invalid because it conflicts with the FMLA's text and remedial scheme. The regulation unlawfully expands employees' substantive leave entitlement and provides relief without a showing of prejudice. Ragsdale was not automatically entitled to an additional 12 weeks of FMLA leave solely due to Wolverine's failure to designate her prior leave as FMLA leave.
Ragsdale reshaped FMLA litigation by requiring employees to prove prejudice from notice or designation violations before obtaining relief. It confirms that FMLA's 12-week entitlement is a hard cap and that remedies are compensatory, not punitive. For administrative law, the case underscores limits on agency authority: regulations cannot create categorical penalties or expand substantive statutory rights absent clear congressional authorization. Practically, employers must still satisfy FMLA notice and designation duties, but the consequence of failure is not automatic extra leave; rather, employers face liability only when their violation causes actual harm. Employees must therefore develop evidence connecting the employer's notice failure to specific losses or foregone choices (e.g., scheduling, treatment timing, or return-to-work decisions).