Back to Federal guidance

FMLA coverage of public-hospital medical residents

Summary WHD considered medical residents working under successive one-year hospital contracts. On the limited facts, it concluded the residents were employees of a covered public hospital and could receive FMLA leave if individually eligible. The hospital could not use training delays caused by leave alone to deny restoration; the letter said the resident should have a chance to make up lost qualifications.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
Document number
FMLA-41
Date issued
August 8, 1994
Status
Active
Status last verified October 12, 2026
Topics

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.

About this page: The full text below is the official document from U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (WHD). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

U.S. Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Washington, D.C. 20210

August 8, 1994
FMLA-41

Dear Name*,

This is in response to your request for an opinion addressed to Name*, District Director, New Orleans District Office. Your request has been forwarded to me for a response. You ask if "House Officers" of public hospitals are covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA).

These "House Officers" are medical residents (doctors) who are generally employed under successive one-year contacts for a total of two to six years depending on the discipline involved. You express concern that if a resident is on FMLA leave for six weeks, a serious problem could develop in attempting to return the employee to the same job. The physician would likely be in jeopardy of being hopelessly behind in the program and subject to being dropped from the program. You indicate § 825.216 may be the only possible relief, if the resident is covered.

The question is whether the "House Officers" are employees for purposes of (FMLA). For purposes of FMLA, the definition of an employee or to employ is taken from § 3(g) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Based on the limited information you have provided, it is our conclusion that these individuals are employees of the hospital. As all public agencies are covered employers for purposes of FMLA (see § 825.104(a)), the only issue would be whether a resident is an eligible employee. If so, the employee is entitled to FMLA leave for any one of the reasons provided in §825.100(a).

Contrary to your assumption, § 825.216 does not provide the hospital any relief in the event the employee takes leave. Under § 825.216, the hospital would have to show that the employee's contract would not have been renewed for some reason other than the taking of FMLA leave. Further, in § 825.215(b) the employee must be given an opportunity to make up any loss in qualifications resulting from the taking of FMLA leave.

Hopefully this has been responsive to your inquiry. If we may be of further assistance please let us know.

Sincerely,

J. Dean Speer Director, Division of Policy and Analysis

  • Note: The actual name(s) was removed to preserve privacy in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(7).

What does federal law require in your situation?

Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace