Work and Family Policy in the Judiciary

• Vail v. Raybestos
  Raybestos Products Company fired Diana Vail, an employee who took periodic leave as a result of migraine headaches, after surveillance footage lead the company to believe that Vail had been working for a family business during her leave.  The 7th Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Raybestos, holding that an employer has not violated the FMLA if it refused to reinstate an employee based on an honest suspicion that she was abusing her leave.
  Case Details»
   
• Frank Farrell v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District Of Oregon
  Farrell filed suit against his employer claiming unlawful denial of FMLA rights. The court found his employer did wrongfully deny leave under FMLA and awarded Farrell $1,110 in lost wages for days missed as a result of his employer’s violation of the law.
  Case Details»
   
• Morr v. Kamco Industries, Inc.
  An employee notified her employer that she would be out for six weeks on maternity leave. The employee didn’t return to work after six weeks and failed to notify her employer which resulted in her being fired. The United States District Court ruled that the employees discharge for violating the absence and notification policy did not infringe upon her FMLA leave rights.
  Case Details» 
   
• Lewis v. School District
  An employee brought suit against her employer claiming that she was retaliated against for taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). On appeal, the 7th District found that the employer’s actions were motivated by retaliation in connection with use of the employee’s FMLA leave.
  Case Details»
   
• Dotson v. BRP U. S. Inc.
  The 7th Circuit Court found that an employer had given an employee adequate notice regarding running FMLA leave concurrently with workers’ compensation. The employee in this case was subject to termination for exceeding twelve weeks of allowable FMLA time.
  Case Details »
  
  
• Lonicki v. Sutter Health Center
  The California Supreme Court found that an employee’s FMLA rights were not violated when the employer fired her when she stopped coming to work. The employee sought to use her FMLA rights to deal with issues of depression. However, the Court found that the employer’s failure to obtain a binding medical opinion on whether the depression qualified as a serious health condition did not bar him from later claiming the condition did not exist.
  Case Details »
  
  
• Murphy v. North American Lighting
  A court ruled that an employee’s Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights were violated when her employer failed to notify her that a period of leave would be counted under FMLA. The court held that employers must provide individualized notice to employees when leave is designated as FMLA leave.
  Case Details »
  
  
• Downey v. Strain
  The United States District Court ruled that an employer did not interfere with an employee’s FMLA rights by denying her family leave to care for her adult daughter. The employee’s adult daughter’s condition did not qualify the employee for leave under FMLA.
  Case Details »
  
  
• Darst v. Interstate Brands Corporation
  An employee filed suit against his employer for not granting him rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to seek treatment for alcoholism. The courts ruled in favor of the employer. They found that the employee offered no evidence that he was in alcohol treatment during the days he was absent which would have allowed him to utilize his rights under FMLA.
  Case Details »
  
  
• Breneisen v. Motorola
  Over twenty-three Motorola employees filed suits against the company for violating their Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights. The court ruled in favor of two employees finding that they had been discriminated by their employer for using leave under FMLA.
  Case Details »
  
  
• O'Connor v. Busch's Inc.
  A judge ruled that the twelve months of employment required for eligibility under FMLA did not have to be consecutive. An employee who was rehired by a company that they previously worked for would be eligible to receive family leave benefits if the total time worked equaled twelve months.
  Read the full case
  
  
• Barbara Taylor v. Progress Energy, Inc.
  The Court of Appeals ruled that employees can not waive FMLA rights without the court or agency approval. Employers are also restricted from inducing employees to waive their rights without additional approval.
  Read the full case
  
  
• Chester v. Quadco Rehabilitation Center
  An Ohio federal district court denied Quadco Rehabilitation Center’s motion for summary judgment which was in response to a terminated employee’s retaliation claim under FMLA. The court found that genuine issues of material fact did exist and the employee did have reason to question the motivation behind the termination. The court ruled in favor of the Center in the retaliation case but feels they still are not entitled to a summary judgment.
  Read the full case
  
  
• Leonard v. Uhlich Children's Advantage Network
  An employee diagnosed with bipolar disorder claimed that he was wrongfully discharged in response to his use of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights. However, the court ruled that the employee failed to prove that his discharge was in response to his use of FMLA rights.
  Read the full case
  
  
• Greenwell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  An employee argued that she was wrongfully fired because she was protected under FMLA from termination based on excessive absences. However, the court ruled that sufficient FMLA notice was not given to the employer in order to guard her against termination.
  Read the full case
  
  
• Mutchler v. Dunlap Memorial Hosp.
  An employee wanted to take medical leave under FMLA which would require that she serve 1,250 hours in the 12 month period prior to taking leave. However, the court ruled that the employee, who received compensation for unworked hours as an incentive to work weekends, could not include those hours in her “hours of service” for purposes of FMLA. The employee therefore did not qualify for leave as she did not meet the necessary “hours of service” requirement under FMLA.
  Read the full case
  
  
• Esser v. Rainbow Advertising Sales Corp.
  Account Executive, Peter Esser, claims his employer retaliated against him for taking 12 weeks of FMLA leave. Esser argues that his employer failed to properly investigate an incident that resulted in his termination. The court did not even issue a judgment on this case as they asserted that Esser failed to do more than simply show doubt and possibility of retaliation.
  Read the full case
  
  
• Dube v. JP Morgan Investor Services
  Daniel Dube alleges that his employer violated the Family and Medical Leave Act by failing to provide FMLA leave and neglecting to provide proper termination notice. Dube also asserts that his termination was retaliatory in nature. The courts found that posting the notice on the intranet website was adequate, that Dube did in fact receive FMLA leave in accordance with current standards and that the employer’s actions were not retaliatory.
  Read the full case
  
  
• Collins v. U.S. Playing Card Co.
  An Ohio judge ruled that short breaks away from your work area can constitute a form of protected leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The decision acknowledges that there are medical conditions that exist that might require “intermittent leave” by employees. However, sufficient notice must be given to the employer to invoke FMLA protection.
  Read the full case