Lantern & Rune Consulting

When most people think about FMLA, they picture taking several weeks away from work all at once.

But that's not the only way it can work.

In some situations, eligible employees may be able to take intermittent FMLA.

Intermittent FMLA allows qualifying leave to be taken in smaller increments instead of one continuous block of time.

That might mean taking a few hours off for a medical appointment, missing work during a flare-up of a chronic condition, arriving late for recurring treatments, or taking leave one day at a time as needed.

This type of leave recognizes that not every serious health condition follows a predictable schedule.

Some conditions are ongoing.

Some fluctuate.

Some require regular treatment over months or even years.

Intermittent FMLA is designed to provide job protection while someone manages those realities.

Like continuous FMLA, intermittent leave is generally unpaid unless another source of income replacement is available.

The difference isn't whether you're protected—it's how the leave is used.

It's also important to know that intermittent leave generally counts against your total FMLA entitlement, even when it's used a few hours or one day at a time.

Understanding intermittent FMLA helps explain why someone may be absent from work periodically without taking a traditional leave of absence.

The law recognizes that treatment, recovery, and caregiving don't always happen in one uninterrupted block of time.

I walk through this framework in more detail on my site.

www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

If you've ever tried to figure out whether you qualify for FMLA, paid family leave, short-term disability, PTO, workers' compensation, or an ADA accommodation, you've probably had the same thought:

Why is this so complicated?

The answer isn't that someone sat down and designed an incredibly complex system.

The answer is that our leave system wasn't built all at once.

It was built piece by piece over decades, with each new law or benefit attempting to solve a different problem.

One of the biggest reasons the United States has an employer-based benefits system can be traced back to World War II.

During the war, employers faced wage controls that limited their ability to compete for workers through higher pay. Instead, many began offering benefits like health insurance. Federal tax policy later reinforced that approach, and over time many employers expanded those benefit packages to include paid sick leave, disability insurance, vacation time, and eventually paid parental leave.

Instead of creating one national system, the United States gradually developed thousands of employer-specific benefit programs.

By the 1970s and 1980s, the workforce had changed dramatically. More women were participating in the workforce, dual-income households became increasingly common, and more employees found themselves balancing work with caregiving responsibilities.

Many workers faced an impossible choice:

Take the time they needed.

Or keep their job.

As pressure grew for a national leave policy, the debate wasn't whether employees ever needed time away from work.

Most people agreed they did.

The real question was what responsibility employers should have while an employee was on leave.

In 1993, Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

The law created a federal right to unpaid, job-protected leave for many eligible employees.

That wasn't because lawmakers had forgotten about income.

Paid leave was part of the broader debate.

But after years of legislative negotiations, political disagreement, and two presidential vetoes, Congress ultimately reached consensus around protecting employment—not requiring employers to provide wages during leave.

The result was a law that answered one important question:

"Can I take leave without losing my job?"

It deliberately left another largely unanswered:

"How will I pay my bills while I'm gone?"

For many employees, that answer still depended on employer benefits, accrued PTO, disability insurance, or, years later, state paid family and medical leave programs.

Since then, additional pieces have continued to be added.

Some employers expanded paid leave benefits.

Some states created paid family and medical leave programs.

Workers' compensation remained its own system.

Reasonable accommodations under the ADA addressed a different workplace need.

Each serves an important purpose.

But each was created at a different time, for a different reason, to solve a different problem.

That's why workplace leave can feel so overwhelming today.

It isn't one program.

It's a collection of programs that developed over generations.

Understanding that history doesn't make the system simpler.

But it does help explain why navigating workplace leave often means navigating several different systems at once.

The complexity isn't an accident.

It's the result of decades of building new layers onto an existing foundation.

www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

Most workplaces are built around a simple assumption:

People are generally predictable.

They will arrive when expected.
Work when expected.
Be available when expected.
Perform at relatively consistent levels over time.

In many ways, that assumption makes sense. Teams need coordination. Work needs structure. Schedules exist for a reason.

The challenge is that people are not always predictable.

Health changes.
Children get sick.
Caregiving responsibilities emerge.
Transportation breaks down.
Life happens.

And some people experience unpredictability far more often than others.

Many workplace systems function best when employees can anticipate their own needs in advance. Need time off? Request it ahead of time. Need flexibility? Explain exactly what you'll need and when.

The underlying assumption is that unpredictability is the exception.

For many people, it isn't.

When work is built around predictability, people experiencing instability can appear less reliable — even when they are working incredibly hard to keep up.

Not because they care less.

Not because they're less committed.

But because the structure itself rewards consistency.

This week's Mid-Week Reflection looks at what happens when workplace systems are built around predictable lives — and what that means for people navigating less predictable realities.

Read the full reflection here:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

Over the past several months, I've spent time discussing the history of disability and healthcare policy in the United States.

We've talked about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, the Rehabilitation Act, Section 504, the Independent Living Movement, the ADA, Olmstead, the Affordable Care Act, and many of the policies that shaped the systems we navigate today.

What strikes me most is that the history is not really about programs.

It's about patterns.

And many of those patterns are still shaping people's experiences today.

One of the most consistent themes throughout disability and healthcare policy is that creating a program is not the same thing as making it accessible.

Again and again, policymakers created benefits, protections, services, and rights intended to help people.

But access often depended on much more than whether a program existed.

It depended on implementation.

Administration.

Funding.

Provider availability.

Geography.

Eligibility matters.

But access matters too.

And the two are not always the same thing.

History also reminds us that passing a law is rarely the end of the story.

The Rehabilitation Act was signed before Section 504 was fully implemented.

The ADA created broad protections, but questions about interpretation and enforcement continued for years.

Olmstead established important principles about community integration, but communities still needed services and supports to make those principles meaningful.

Rights on paper and rights in practice are not always identical.

Implementation matters.

Another lesson that appears throughout this history is that support and independence are not opposites.

Healthcare.

Community-based services.

Personal care assistance.

Transportation.

Workplace accommodations.

These supports often increase participation rather than reduce it.

People are not less independent because they use support.

In many cases, support is what makes independence possible.

Perhaps the most striking lesson is how often the same questions emerge across decades of policy discussions.

How should support be provided?

What barriers should be removed?

How do we improve access?

How do we create fairness while accommodating different needs?

The details change.

The programs change.

The language changes.

The questions often remain remarkably similar.

For me, that's one of the most valuable reasons to study history.

It reminds us that the systems we navigate today did not appear overnight.

They were shaped by decades of policy decisions, advocacy efforts, legal challenges, and lived experiences.

The policies have changed.

The programs have evolved.

But the central goal has remained remarkably consistent:

To create systems that allow more people to access healthcare, receive support, and participate fully in their communities.

History suggests that goal is rarely achieved all at once.

Instead, it is pursued one policy, one movement, one court case, and one generation at a time.

www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

Myth:
Burnout is a personal resilience problem.

This is one of the most common ways burnout is discussed in workplace culture.

When someone is struggling, the conversation often focuses on what they should do differently. They should set better boundaries, improve their time management, practice more self-care, learn stress management techniques, or become more resilient.

And while those things can absolutely be helpful, they do not explain why entire teams, professions, and industries can experience burnout at the same time.

Burnout is often treated as evidence that an individual needs to change.

But many burnout conversations ignore the conditions that created the burnout in the first place.

Workplace burnout is frequently influenced by factors that are outside any one employee's control. Chronic understaffing, unrealistic workloads, conflicting priorities, lack of control over work, insufficient resources, constant interruptions, emotional labor, and unclear expectations can all contribute to burnout.

When those conditions persist over time, even highly capable and deeply committed employees can struggle.

Many people assume burnout happens because someone is not coping well enough.

In reality, burnout often affects people who care deeply about their work.

Healthcare workers, teachers, caregivers, social service professionals, leaders, and high-performing employees are often praised for their dedication and resilience. Yet those same qualities can make it easier to continue pushing through unhealthy conditions long after support is needed.

Resilience matters.

But resilience is not an unlimited resource.

A resilient employee may be able to tolerate difficult conditions for a period of time. They may continue producing good work. They may continue showing up for their team.

That does not mean the conditions are sustainable.

And it does not mean the responsibility for solving the problem belongs solely to the individual experiencing it.

Because when burnout is framed only as a personal resilience problem, we stop asking important questions about the systems, structures, and workplace conditions contributing to it.

Burnout is not always a sign that someone needs to work harder on themselves.

Sometimes it is a sign that something around them needs to change.

Resilience can help people survive unhealthy systems. It cannot make unhealthy systems healthy.

I’m collecting these myths — and why they persist — on the Lantern & Rune site:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

I recently saw a comment on one of my videos that said:

"Technically doesn't even protect your job. Was fired 2 days after I got back from my 6 week leave."

Without knowing the details, there's no way to know whether that situation was handled appropriately or not. But it does highlight a common misunderstanding about FMLA.

Many people hear that FMLA provides "job protection" and assume that means they cannot be fired if they take leave.

The reality is more complicated.

FMLA generally protects an eligible employee's right to take qualifying leave and return to work. It does not guarantee that employment can never end while an employee is on leave or after they return.

An employee could return from leave during a broader reduction in force. They could have documented performance issues that existed before the leave. They could return after exhausting available leave and still be unable to perform the essential functions of the job.

At the same time, a termination immediately following protected leave may raise important questions depending on the circumstances.

The challenge is that timing alone rarely tells the whole story.

The same outcome—a termination two days after returning from leave—could have very different explanations. That's why it's difficult to draw conclusions from a single comment or headline.

When people ask whether FMLA protects their job, my answer is usually the same:

FMLA provides important protections, but it is not a guarantee that employment can never end. Understanding what happened requires looking at the full context, not just the timing.

The difference matters.

More on my site:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

If you need time away from work because of a serious health condition, can your employer fire you?

In many situations, the answer may involve something called FMLA.

FMLA stands for the Family and Medical Leave Act, a federal law that provides eligible employees with unpaid, job-protected leave for certain family and medical reasons.

FMLA can be used for things like a serious health condition, caring for a qualifying family member, the birth or adoption of a child, and certain military family situations.

The key idea behind FMLA is job protection.

For eligible employees, FMLA provides the ability to take qualifying leave without losing their job or employer-sponsored health insurance because of that absence.

This is where many misconceptions begin.

FMLA does not require employers to pay employees while they are on leave.

Instead, it protects an employee's position and benefits while they are away from work.

Whether someone receives income during that time may depend on other programs, such as short-term disability insurance, paid leave benefits, employer leave policies, or state leave programs.

FMLA and income replacement are not the same thing.

Understanding that distinction helps explain why people can be approved for leave and still worry about how they're going to pay their bills.

The law provides job protection.

It does not necessarily provide income.

I walk through this framework in more detail on my site.
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

By 2010, the American healthcare system looked very different than it does today.

Employer-sponsored insurance was already a major source of coverage for many people. Medicare and Medicaid had existed for decades. Private insurance markets were well established.

But significant gaps remained.

For some people, obtaining health insurance could be difficult, expensive, or even impossible.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was an attempt to address many of those challenges.

One of the most important things to understand about the ACA is the problem policymakers were trying to solve.

Before the law, people seeking coverage in the individual insurance market often faced very different rules than they do today.

Depending on the situation, insurers could deny coverage based on health history, exclude certain pre-existing conditions from coverage, charge higher premiums based on medical risk, or impose annual and lifetime benefit limits.

For people with significant health conditions, obtaining comprehensive health insurance could be challenging.

In some cases, the people who needed coverage the most had the fewest options available to them.

The ACA changed that landscape in several important ways.

It prohibited pre-existing condition exclusions in ACA-compliant major medical plans, expanded Medicaid in participating states, created Health Insurance Marketplace plans, established premium assistance programs, and allowed young adults to remain on a parent's plan until age 26.

For many people, coverage became more accessible than it had been previously.

One of the ACA's most widely discussed provisions involved pre-existing conditions.

Before the law, a person's health history could significantly affect their ability to obtain individual health insurance coverage.

The ACA largely eliminated those practices for ACA-compliant major medical health plans.

That distinction matters.

Some limited-benefit products and other forms of coverage continue to operate under different rules. But for major medical coverage, the changes were substantial.

Like many major policy changes, the ACA addressed some challenges while leaving others unresolved.

The law expanded access to coverage.

It did not eliminate every barrier to care.

Concerns about affordability, deductibles, provider networks, administrative complexity, and healthcare costs continue today.

The ACA did not create a perfect healthcare system.

But it fundamentally changed who could access health insurance and under what conditions.

And for many people navigating healthcare today, the system they experience is shaped by those changes whether they realize it or not.

www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

Stability is often treated like a personal achievement.

Something earned through discipline, responsibility, good decisions, or hard work.

And certainly those things can matter.

But I think we sometimes overlook something important:

Stability is also a resource.

Health. Income. Transportation. Housing. Childcare. Flexible work. Social support.

Many of the things that help create stability sit outside an individual's control.

And when one of those resources changes, stability can become much harder to maintain.

Not because a person changed.

Because the conditions around them did.

One thing I notice again and again is how quickly stability can shift.

A health crisis affects work.

A job loss affects insurance.

A caregiving responsibility affects income.

What often looks like personal instability is frequently the result of resource instability.

When we treat stability as a personal trait, we risk overlooking the resources that make stability possible.

And when those resources disappear, we can mistake a change in circumstances for a change in character.

This week's Mid-Week Reflection looks at why stability is often less about character than we think — and more about resources than we realize.

Read the full reflection here:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

When the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law in 1990, its purpose was clear:

To reduce barriers that prevented disabled people from participating fully in society.

The law established protections related to accessibility, accommodations, and disability discrimination across many areas of public life.

But in the years that followed, many disability advocates became concerned about an unexpected trend.

Increasingly, legal disputes were focusing not on whether discrimination had occurred, but on whether someone met a narrow definition of disability in the first place.

Several court decisions adopted relatively restrictive interpretations of who qualified for ADA protection.

As a result, some individuals found themselves in a difficult position.

A person could have a significant medical condition.

They could experience barriers in employment or daily life.

They could request accommodations.

And yet the legal conversation might focus primarily on whether they were "disabled enough" to qualify for protection.

By the early 2000s, many advocates felt the conversation had drifted away from the ADA's original purpose.

In response, Congress passed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

The goal was not to create an entirely new disability rights framework.

Instead, it was to clarify and restore the broad protections Congress believed the ADA was originally intended to provide.

The ADAAA emphasized that disability should be interpreted broadly and that extensive analysis should not be required in many situations simply to determine whether someone qualified for protection.

The message was straightforward:

Too much attention had been placed on whether individuals qualified for protection.

Too little attention had been placed on whether discrimination had occurred.

One of the reasons I find this chapter of disability policy so interesting is that it highlights a challenge that appears in many systems.

Programs often begin with a clear purpose.

Over time, increasing attention can be placed on eligibility rules, definitions, thresholds, and technical requirements.

Those details matter.

But when they become the primary focus, it can become harder to remember what the system was originally designed to accomplish.

The ADAAA was, in part, an effort to refocus the conversation.

Not on who was disabled enough.

But on the barriers and discrimination the ADA was created to address.

www.lanternandruneconsulting.com