Martin v. Brevard County Pub. Sch.
543 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. Fla. 2008)
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.