Receipts.law

29 C.F.R. § 825.301Designation of FMLA leave

What this section is. § 825.301 is part of the Family and Medical Leave Act regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 825) and governs Designation of FMLA leave. 8 court opinions applying it are listed below, each verified against the opinion's own text and linked to the full decision.
The rule begins: “(a) Employer responsibilities.”

The regulation, in full

(a) Employer responsibilities. The employer's decision to designate leave as FMLA-qualifying must be based only on information received from the employee or the employee's spokesperson (e.g., if the employee is incapacitated, the employee's spouse, adult child, parent, doctor, etc., may provide notice to the employer of the need to take FMLA leave). In any circumstance where the employer does not have sufficient information about the reason for an employee's use of leave, the employer should inquire further of the employee or the spokesperson to ascertain whether leave is potentially FMLA-qualifying. Once the employer has acquired knowledge that the leave is being taken for a FMLA-qualifying reason, the employer must notify the employee as provided in § 825.300(d).

(b) Employee responsibilities. An employee giving notice of the need for FMLA leave does not need to expressly assert rights under the Act or even mention the FMLA to meet his or her obligation to provide notice, though the employee would need to state a qualifying reason for the needed leave and otherwise satisfy the notice requirements set forth in § 825.302 or § 825.303 depending on whether the need for leave is foreseeable or unforeseeable. An employee giving notice of the need for FMLA leave must explain the reasons for the needed leave so as to allow the employer to determine whether the leave qualifies under the Act. If the employee fails to explain the reasons, leave may be denied. In many cases, in explaining the reasons for a request to use leave, especially when the need for the leave was unexpected or unforeseen, an employee will provide sufficient information for the employer to designate the leave as FMLA leave. An employee using accrued paid leave may in some cases not spontaneously explain the reasons or their plans for using their accrued leave. However, if an employee requesting to use paid leave for a FMLA-qualifying reason does not explain the reason for the leave and the employer denies the employee's request, the employee will need to provide sufficient information to establish a FMLA-qualifying reason for the needed leave so that the employer is aware that the leave may not be denied and may designate that the paid leave be appropriately counted against (substituted for) the employee's FMLA leave entitlement. Similarly, an employee using accrued paid vacation leave who seeks an extension of unpaid leave for a FMLA-qualifying reason will need to state the reason. If this is due to an event which occurred during the period of paid leave, the employer may count the leave used after the FMLA-qualifying reason against the employee's FMLA leave entitlement.

(c) Disputes. If there is a dispute between an employer and an employee as to whether leave qualifies as FMLA leave, it should be resolved through discussions between the employee and the employer. Such discussions and the decision must be documented.

(d) Retroactive designation. If an employer does not designate leave as required by § 825.300, the employer may retroactively designate leave as FMLA leave with appropriate notice to the employee as required by § 825.300 provided that the employer's failure to timely designate leave does not cause harm or injury to the employee. In all cases where leave would qualify for FMLA protections, an employer and an employee can mutually agree that leave be retroactively designated as FMLA leave.

(e) Remedies. If an employer's failure to timely designate leave in accordance with § 825.300 causes the employee to suffer harm, it may constitute an interference with, restraint of, or denial of the exercise of an employee's FMLA rights. An employer may be liable for compensation and benefits lost by reason of the violation, for other actual monetary losses sustained as a direct result of the violation, and for appropriate equitable or other relief, including employment, reinstatement, promotion, or any other relief tailored to the harm suffered. See § 825.400(c). For example, if an employer that was put on notice that an employee needed FMLA leave failed to designate the leave properly, but the employee's own serious health condition prevented him or her from returning to work during that time period regardless of the designation, an employee may not be able to show that the employee suffered harm as a result of the employer's actions. However, if an employee took leave to provide care for a son or daughter with a serious health condition believing it would not count toward his or her FMLA entitlement, and the employee planned to later use that FMLA leave to provide care for a spouse who would need assistance when recovering from surgery planned for a later date, the employee may be able to show that harm has occurred as a result of the employer's failure to designate properly. The employee might establish this by showing that he or she would have arranged for an alternative caregiver for the seriously ill son or daughter if the leave had been designated timely.

Verbatim from the eCFR, title 29, section 825.301, current as of 2026-07-29. Read it at the official source: ecfr.gov →

Court opinions applying § 825.301

Each opinion below was checked against its own text: the citation appears in a C.F.R. context and the opinion discusses the FMLA. Cases that merely contained the number were dropped.

CaseCourtDecided
Brandi Lutes v. United Trailers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit2020-02-13
Kasey Roberts v. Gestamp West Virginia, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit2022-08-15
Hofferica v. St. Mary Medical CenterDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania2011-09-20
Royce Jones v. Simploy, Inc., and Division of Employment SecurityMissouri Court of Appeals2024-09-24
State ex rel. Professionals Guild of Ohio v. State Emp. Relations Bd.Ohio Court of Appeals2020-06-11
Thurston v. Cherry Hill TriplexDistrict Court, D. New Jersey2008-08-05
Edward Render v. FCA US, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit2022-11-16
Larison v. Home of the InnocentsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky2018-05-11

Opinions hosted by CourtListener, a free public service of the non-profit Free Law Project. Court opinions are public-domain works of the United States.

General legal information, not legal advice. This page reproduces a federal regulation and lists decisions that cite it. It does not tell you how any rule applies to your situation, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Regulations change and courts read them differently across circuits — confirm the current text at ecfr.gov and talk to a licensed attorney in your state.