Under the Family Medical Leave Act, what would happen if an employee took a leave of absence for a family or medical emergency?​

Under the Family Medical Leave Act, an employee would either have the same job as the one they took after the end of a leave of absence, or they would get compensation that is the equivalent of the job they had before the leave of absence if the place the employee is employed at has at least 50 employees and the employee has been employed at said job for at least a year.

Explanation:

The Family Medical Leave Act was enacted in 1993 to protect worker's rights in the event that a family or medical emergency happens. With this act, workers in specific circumstances can be paid for the medical leave and/or not lose the job they had over 12 weeks. Employees under specific circumstances are also legally entitled to the required upholding and maintenance of their health insurance by their employer if they had any.

These actions that are required in the Family Medical Leave Act in favor of an employer are required to be upheld, or else a court in the event of a lawsuit against the employer will require the employer to comply with the Family Medical Leave Act and/or pay money in specific circumstances.

the correct answer is d: "party organizers, volunteers, voters, and elected officials."

explanation: we can only guess at how our actions may be perceived in the future. doing something really big like killing lots of people, saving lots of people, affecting the lives of lots of people is a sure fire way of being remembered in historical records. we can also make a difference in the history records by being a small influence on something bigger, whether that is as a civil servant, scientist or artist.

of course you could argue that we all affect history just as tiny cogs in a   bigger machine.

if you mean how do people influence our opinions of things which have already happened, then simply by writing a book which looks at things form a different perspective and trying to convince people that this perspective is more accurate or truthful. people do it all the time i.e. richard the third was a terrible or was he? plenty would disagree, it's just that their views aren't the most widely known.n: