Back to Federal guidance

Serious health conditions and attendance bonuses

Summary WHD's 1995 letter discussed minor illnesses and said an employee could not lose perfect-attendance bonus eligibility solely for taking bona fide FMLA leave. WHD now expressly marks this letter superseded by FMLA-86 dated December 12, 1996. The notice identifies that later letter as its replacement.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
Document number
FMLA-57
Date issued
April 7, 1995
Status
Superseded
WHD marks this letter superseded by FMLA-86, dated December 12, 1996.
Status last verified October 12, 2026
Topics

Is this still the rule?

This document has been superseded. Ezel checks what federal law requires today, under current federal labor law, and answers your situation with citations.

This document has been superseded
WHD marks this letter superseded by FMLA-86, dated December 12, 1996. It no longer reflects the agency's current position. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance, and verify current law before relying on anything here.
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

April 7, 1995
FMLA-57

*This letter has been superseded by FMLA-86, dated December 12, 1996.

Dear Name*,

This is in response to your letter of March 14 forwarding a copy of a letter from your constituent, Name regarding the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). Name expresses two concerns: that the Department's interpretation of the term serious health condition does not reflect the intent of the Act's authors and is being applied inconsistently; and, that FMLA leave absences may not be counted against an employee for purposes of perfect attendance bonuses or other disciplinary actions. The FMLA defines serious health condition to mean either "inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility" or "continuing treatment by a health care provider." Regulations, 29 CFR Part 825, published as a Final Rule on January 6, 1995 and effective April 6, 1995, state that, unless complications arise, the common cold, the flu, ear aches, upset stomach, minor ulcers, headaches other than migraine, routine dental or orthodontia problems, periodontal disease, etc., are examples of conditions that do not meet the definition of a serious health condition and therefore do not qualify for FMLA leave. The fact that an employee is incapacitated for more than three days, has been treated by a health care provider on at least one occasion which has resulted in a regimen of continuing treatment prescribed by the health care provider does not convert minor illnesses such as the common cold into serious health conditions in the ordinary case (absent complications.) See § 825.114(c) of the final FMLA Regulations, 29 CFR Part 825.

With regard to incentive plans rewarding attendance, an employee may not be disqualified solely for having taken bona fide FMLA leave. The statute states that the taking of leave shall not result in the loss of any employment benefit accrued prior to the date the FMLA leave commences. To the extent an employee had perfect attendance before the FMLA leave begins, the employee is entitled to continue eligibility for perfect attendance upon return from leave and may not be disqualified from the bonus because of taking leave. Illnesses that do not meet the definition of a serious health condition do not enjoy FMLA's protection in this regard.

I hope that the above addresses your constituent's concerns and conveys fully the Department's position with respect to these concerns. I would be glad to address any further questions you or your constituent may have.

Sincerely,

Daniel F. Sweeney Deputy Assistant Administrator

Enclosure

  • 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 today?

This guidance has been superseded. Ezel checks current federal labor law as it stands now and answers your situation 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