Your Top Destination for Human Resources Compliance Knowledge

The story

Joe’s job required him to hold a commercial driver’s license. After a work-related car accident, Joe took leave for a couple of weeks, then returned to work on light-duty with a driving restriction.

About a month later, the employer changed its policy of allowing employees to attend occupational medical appointments while on the clock. When told this, Joe told Zeb, his supervisor, that he couldn’t attend his appointments after work because he was “done and completely exhausted” after his shifts.

In response, Zeb, the HR Director, and union representatives held a meeting with Joe to discuss whether Joe’s exhaustion presented a safety issue at work. They decided it did and prohibited Joe from driving at work until he could undergo an independent medical examination. In the meantime, Joe was to report to work and perform his other job functions.

The same day, Joe submitted a doctor’s note indicating that he was to be off work until he was re-evaluated. Based on the doctor’s note, the employer allowed Joe to take medical leave.

Over the next year or so, Joe extended his leave 13 times based on doctors’ notes. On November 8, 2021, the employer asked for a firm date when Joe thought he could return to work. On August 17, 2022, the employer sent Joe a letter saying that it wouldn’t extend his leave indefinitely and that it expected him to report to work on August 25, 2022, when his most recent doctor’s note expired.

But Joe didn’t return to work on that date, and instead submitted another doctor’s note asking for six more weeks of leave. The employer denied this extension and terminated him on September 1, 2022. Joe sued, claiming the employer violated the ADA when it didn’t extend his leave.

The ruling

The court found that, because Joe’s doctor never cleared him to return to work, he wasn’t qualified for the job and didn’t have a disability discrimination case. The ADA didn’t require the employer to give Joe two years of leave.

This ruling helps serve as a reminder that employers don’t have to allow unlimited leave or accept multiple leave extensions as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. While there is no hardline number of extensions that might be reasonable, this court put that number at fewer than 13. Other courts could, however, rule differently.

Haack v. Lapeer County Road Commission and Zebadiah Schons, Eastern District of Michigan, No. 23-12273, August 19, 2025.

Key to remember: Employers don’t have to keep extending an employee’s leave as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Smallest increment of time

While the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division has not chimed in directly on whether the FMLA allows this, it didn’t say, in a 2018 opinion letter, that it was prohibited.

In the letter, a health care provider certified an employee’s 15-minute rest breaks as required every hour and were thus covered under the FMLA.

Employers must track FMLA leave using an increment no greater than the shortest time period they use to account for the use of other forms of leave. This is true as long as:

• It’s not greater than one hour, and
• Employers don’t reduce an employee's allotted FMLA leave by more than the amount of leave actually taken.

In other words, employers may not require employees to take more leave than they need to deal with the reasons they took leave in the first place. Employers must count FMLA leave using the shortest increment of leave they use to account for any other type of leave.

Court chimes in

At least one earlier court case saw things differently from the 2018 opinion letter.

To ensure adequate coverage, employees at a company had to take their two 15-minute breaks and one one-hour lunch break at different, staggered intervals.

Sheletha struggled with attendance. Subsequently, she started taking FMLA leave to care for her mother, and the leave was predicted to affect her arrival and departure times. Despite taking FMLA leave in full days, when she was late, she said it was due to the care she was providing.

After being fired, in part for poor attendance, Sheletha sued, arguing that her tardies should have been protected by the FMLA, as she spent the time talking to her mother. The company argued that the FMLA does not entitle employees to take breaks for as long as they choose. It also said that Sheletha had no evidence that she spent the time talking to her mother.

The court leaned on another ruling that said that FMLA leave should constitute time away from a place of work, not merely periodic time away from a desk throughout the day.

Grant v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Southern District of Texas, No. H-11-500, November 28, 2012.

In short, employees might be entitled to take FMLA leave as 15-minute breaks. The certification should, however, support this.

To pay or not?

Then there’s the question of pay. Would employers have to pay Emma for additional breaks in our opening scenario? No.

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, rest breaks lasting up to 20 minutes are ordinarily paid. Sometimes, however, short rest breaks that primarily benefit the employee (like Emma) don’t need to be paid.

Employees aren’t entitled to pay for frequent accommodation breaks (that is, breaks to accommodate the employees’ FMLA reasons) that mainly benefit employees.

Key to remember: Tread carefully. Courts might differ on whether employees may take FMLA leave as longer work breaks. Additional breaks, however, don’t have to be paid.

Tainted history

Marijuana rescheduling was proposed by the Department of Justice in May 2024. The proposal looked at moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, placing marijuana in the same classification as prescription drugs.

Hearings on the proposal were scheduled to begin in December 2024 and then early 2025. They have been stayed since January 13, 2025, when Judge John J. Mulrooney granted a pending appeal from proponents of marijuana rescheduling.

They alleged that the proceedings had been tainted because of improper communications by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) with those who had a stake in the case.

Marijuana not a priority

With the appeal pending, Mulrooney oversaw some procedural motions, but no new hearing dates were set.

When Mulrooney, the DEA’s chief administrative law judge, retired on August 1, he pointed out that the Controlled Substances Act requires an administrative law judge to preside over DEA administrative enforcement hearing proceedings. Until a judge is appointed, all matters filed in the case are forwarded to DEA Administrator Terrence C. Cole.

Cole was sworn in as administrator on July 23, but did not mention marijuana rescheduling in a news release listing his priorities.

Workplace considerations

While the issue remains unsettled, employers should:

Be prepared to update their drug and alcohol policy if marijuana reclassification makes a comeback. If it is reclassified to a lower drug schedule, it may need to be treated as a prescription drug.

Continue to follow state laws. Each state law is a little different, but a law may restrict drug testing, protect off-duty use, or prohibit discrimination against individuals who use marijuana. Employers should understand a law’s restrictions.

Consider accommodation requests for medical marijuana patients. Even if off-duty medical marijuana use is not an option, other accommodations for the employee’s underlying medical condition should be considered.

Key to remember: The federal rescheduling of marijuana has stalled, but employers still need to follow state marijuana laws and should be prepared for the issue to resurface.