Jump to Navigation

FMLA & Disability

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) protects individuals and families in the event that they need to leave work for a medical reason, including pregnancy, or to care for an ill or disabled family member. While working persons and families are protected under FMLA, the laws can be complex and involve certain limitations. Employees may also face disputes with employers who seek to deny FMLA claims. The attorneys at Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, are experienced FMLA and disability lawyers dedicated to achieving positive results for your unique circumstances.

Call (302) 529-0121 today or contact me by e-mail for a consultation to discuss your case. We offer experienced, strategic and compassionate legal advocacy focused on your rights and interests.

FMLA and Your Rights

Under FMLA, you may be entitled to take a total of 12 unpaid weeks leave during any 12 month period for the following purposes:

  • A serious health condition that makes you unable to perform essential work duties
  • To care for an ill spouse, son, daughter or parent who has a serious health condition
  • When you or your spouse gives birth, to care for the child or your spouse after childbirth
  • After placement of an adopted or foster child in your family

Depending on the circumstances, any leave authorized under FMLA does not have to be taken consecutively, but the duration cannot exceed 12 weeks in any 12-month period.

We are  experienced in FMLA cases involving:

  • Employees who are diagnosed with serious illness or disease, including cancer
  • Employees who are diagnosed with a mental illness, including depression or addiction
  • Employees who leave work to care for a loved one with serious physical or mental conditions
  • Employees who take time off to care for a newborn or adopted child
  • Employees who take medical leave to care for a spouse after childbirth

Do I Need an Attorney?

While there are specific limitations and restrictions - especially in categorizing eligible employees - complications can also arise for employees who are denied their rights under FMLA. An experienced attorney can inform you of your rights and benefits, help you collect necessary documentation and direct you in handling affairs at work.

As your attorneys, we understand that FMLA claims are often personal and sensitive topics. We will remain sensitive and aware of your immediate interests, reputation and long-term career goals.

Protect Your Rights - Contact an Experienced Attorney Today

Call (302) 529-0121 or contact our office by e-mail to schedule an initial consultation to discuss your case. We are conveniently located safely in the Wilmington suburbs at Lancaster Pike (Rte. 48) and Centre Road (Rte. 141).

View Cases

  • Sheridan v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3rd Cir. 1996) (en banc) (Plaintiff's jury verdict and the "pretext only" paradigm for proof of intentional discrimination established).
  • Hawkins v. Division of State Police, et al., C.A. No. 99-297-SLR (Religious discrimination case which successfully obtained an offer of judgment and caused the State to stop using the MMPI-1.
  • Miller v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., C. A. No. 01-827-JJF (D.Del. 2003) (Race Discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Panaro v. J.C. Penny, Inc., C.A. 01C-02-010 JOH, 2002 WL 130692 (Del. Super. 2002)(In a personal injury case, admission into evidence of direct examination of deceased deponent/plaintiff does not.
  • Price, et al. v. L. Aaron Chaffinch, et al., C.A. No. 04-956-GMS, 2006 WL 1313178 (D.Del. 2006) (First Amendment Retaliation, Petitions Clause and Defamation Claims survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Reyes v. Freebery, 141 Fed. Appx. 49 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) remanding to District Court to explain its restrictions on the public's right to access to judicial records and counsel's First Amendment.
  • Underwood v. Sear Roebuck and Co., 343 F.Supp.2d 259 (D.Del. 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Shotzberger v. State of Delaware Dept. Of Correction, 2004 WL 758354 (D.Del. Jan. 30, 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgement).
  • Stull v. Thomas S. Neuberger, P.A., 2003 WL 21481016 (Del. Super. Febr. 28, 2003) (Effect of Delaware accord and satisfaction law on a contract for legal services).
View More Cases

Case Evaluation Form

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy