Total Family Medical Leave Act Cases: 13
Plaintiff alleged two claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act for interference with her exercise of her rights under the FMLA, and for retaliation because of her attempt to exercise her FMLA rights. The employer asserted that it is not subject to the FMLA because it employs less than fifty people. The employee failed to point to any evidence undermining the employer's affidavit evidence showing that the combined number of employees of the employer and related agencies was under fifty but argued that, instead of relying on the affidavit, “941" tax forms for all of the employer’s integrated entities. The court explained that the a plaintiff cannot successfully defend a motion for summary judgment by merely attacking the defendant’s evidence that disproves her claim. Moreover, the employer was not required to present payroll evidence to the exclusion of other types of evidence, despite a Department of Labor policy. The best evidence rule, Fed. R. Evid. 1002, did not apply to the evidence. The employer’s motion for summary judgment was granted.
Read More
A former employee appealed an order granting summary judgment to a school district on the employee's claims for interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 2601-2654. The employee contended that he stood in loco parentis to his granddaughter and was therefore entitled to FMLA leave to care for her. During that FMLA leave period, the employee provided his granddaughter and his daughter, the granddaughter's mother, substantial financial support, including a home, food, and health insurance. He played a significant role in caring for his granddaughter and his daughter was a member of the Army Reserve and had been informed that her unit would be soon deployed overseas. The employee claimed even if his FMLA claim were invalid, the school district was estopped from challenging his entitlement to that leave because the school district originally approved his leave request. The school board’s original approval, however, was based on the child’s mother being deployed oversees – this deployment never actually occurred. The court held that the employee could not invoke the estoppel doctrine because the school board’s representation was not based on “true facts” The court held, however, that the employee had presented sufficient evidence to preclude summary judgment as to whether he was entitled to FMLA leave. Summary judgment on the employee’s retaliation and interference claims were also reversed because there existed genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the reasons the school board gave in support of its decision to terminate the employee were merely pretextual.
Read More
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court
Read More
Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 02-21758-CV-PCH). A federal judge has refused to dismiss a suit under the Family and Medical Leave Act brought by a former corporate vice president who claims he was told on the day he returned from a three-month leave that his job had been eliminated in a "restructuring" and that his new position came with a $20,000 pay cut. In her 12-page opinion in Heron v. American Heritage Federal Credit Union, U.S. District Judge Petrese B. Tucker found that a jury must decide two key factual disputes -whether a true restructuring ever took place and, if it did, whether it was truly planned prior to plaintiff Dennis Heron's FMLA leave. The decision rejects a summary judgment motion in which defense attorneys portrayed Heron as a worker who quickly grew unhappy with his job and complained during his one year of employment that he was "overwhelmed" with work he couldn't finish and was never given enough assistance. In their motion, defense attorneys Sandra A. Girifalco and Melissa C. Angeline of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young argued that "the right to reinstatement under the FMLA is not absolute," and that Heron's complaints about his workload had led the company to consider restructuring its marketing department before Heron ever requested a leave. As a result, they argued, Heron was entitled only to reinstatement in the newly created position which paid less because it came with fewer responsibilities. But plaintiff's attorney William J. Fox argued in his reply brief that the defense motion "goes to great length to split hairs, ignore evidence and, frankly, misstate the facts of this case." Fox argued that American Heritage fell far short of its burden of proof for its claim that the elimination of Heron's position had nothing to do with his exercise of FMLA rights.
Read More
The plaintiff filed an action against Ethan Allen for alleged violation of the Family Medical Leave Act. Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney stones and notified the employer of her condition on December 5, 2003. On December 24, 2003, defendant sent plaintiff the FMLA forms and health care providers certification that plaintiff was required to return. On January 7, 2004, plaintiff submitted the forms and was also approved for short term disability benefits. On January 14, 2004, plaintiff
Read More
Plaintiff was hospitalized for surgery and remained in the hospital for
one week and at home for an additional five weeks. The day upon returning from her leave,
plaintiff
Read More
The lower court correctly granted defendant, Magic Carpet Aviation, summary judgment because employer did not have a sufficient number of employees to qualify for protections under the Family Medical Leave Act. In order for the Act to apply, the employer must have at least fifty employees within a 75 mile radius of the worksite. See 29 U.S.C. 2611 (2)(b)(ii). The Court held that both Magic Carpet and Amway were Morrison
Read More
The employee requested maternity leave under the FMLA prior to becoming eligible for leave, and prior to having her contract for employment renewed. When her contract was not renewed, she filed a claim for retaliation. Summary judgment was granted to the school board because the employee failed to show that the decision not to renew the contract was pretext, and this appeal followed. The 11th Cir. affirmed the lower court judgment but for different reasons. The 11th Cir held that the employee
Read More
The plaintiff, a former employee of a hospital who was terminated for being absent from work too much, filed a complaint against the hospital contending that her absences were for medical reasons and were protected under the Family Medical Leave Act. The plaintiff also alleged that the hospital had retaliated against her for exercising her FMLA right to be absent from work for a serious health condition. The court ultimately found that the plaintiff did not suffer from a
Read More
Hibbs was an employee of Nevada Department of Human Resources. In April and May 1997, he asked for and was granted 12 weeks of intermittently needed unpaid leave under the FMLA to take care of his ailing wife, who was recovering from a car accident and neck injury. Hibbs did so until August 5, 1997, after which he did not return to work. In October 1997, Hibbs was informed that he had exhausted his leave and must report to work by November 12, 1997. He failed to do so and was fired. Hibbs sued Nevada Department of Human Resources under the Family Medical Leave Act. The Federal District Court awarded the employer summary judgment on the ground that the FMLA claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Hibbs appealed, and the United States intervened under 28 U.S.C.
Read More
The plaintiff was employed as a charter airline pilot. The parent corporation of the charter service also owned a basketball franchise. Prior to being terminated when pornography was found on his work computer, the plaintiff had requested time off to deal with his depression. The plaintiff claimed that his termination was pretextual for denying his FMLA leave. The defendant employer alleged that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the employee was not an "eligible employee" under the FMLA. The appellate court found that defendants' motion to dismiss involved questions of both jurisdiction and the merits of the FMLA claim and was thus reserved for the finder of fact. Thus, the trial court was required to find that jurisdiction existed and deal with the defendant
Read More
Plaintiff began employment with the City of St. Petersburg Police Department on May 20, 1985. In 1999, she was called to testify on behalf of a sergeant under whom she formerly worked in to determine whether the sergeant was entitled to disability benefits. At the hearing, Plaintiff testified that the sergeant was targeted for mistreatment and that Plaintiff feared retaliation from testifying at the hearing.
After the hearing, plaintiff requested overtime pay for the time she testified at the hearing, which Defendant refused to provide. Plaintiff later received the payment, and the police chief requested that the police department investigate the discrimination concerns plaintiff raised. Plaintiff subsequently tendered her resignation, which she attempted to later rescind. The chief did not accept her rescission because the department had already accepted her resignation.
The court found that Plaintiff
Read More
The employer granted Ragsdale a thirty week absence when cancer kept her out of work in 1996. Ragsdale nevertheless brought suit against her employer arguing that she was entitled to 12 more weeks of leave because her employer had not informed her that the 30 week absence would count against her FMLA entitlement.
The Court held 29 CFR section 825.700(a) (2001) was contrary to the Family Medical Leave Act, and beyond the Secretary of Labor
Read More