Recently, in April of 2010, the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan heard a case regarding the FMLA and the issue of violating Defendant’s three day no call/no show rule. (See Bradford v. Challenge manufacturing Co., 2010 WL 1758243 (W.D.Mich.))
“The FMLA provides two types of claims or theories of liability. (cites omitted). The first theory is the “entitlement” or “interference” theory, which is based upon the substantive rights created by the FMLA. (cites omitted). An employer is liability under this theory if it interferes with an employee’s FMLA created right to medical leave or to reinstatement following the leave. (cites omitted). The second type of FMLA claim is a “retaliation” or “discrimination” theory, which arises under …. That provision states that “it shall be unlawful for any employer to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any individual for opposing any practice made unlawful by this title.” (cites omitted). Id. Plaintiff in this FMLA case asserted both claims. (Louisville FMLA lawyer Andrew Alitowski could explain to you these facts in better detail if you so desired).
call/no show rule. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant interfered with her FMLA rights by sending her home and effectively suspending her, even though she had until April 17, 2008 to submit a proper FMLA certification. Id. The Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment because “while Defendant’s attendance policy requires employees to call in their absences each day, nothing in the policy suggests that an employee sent home to obtain a proper FMLA certification is required to call in. Plaintiff’s evidence shows that Defendant does not required employees on vacation, on FMLA or other types of leaves, or on disciplinary suspensions to call in.” Id.
As to the Retaliation Claim, the Court also ruled that there were questions of fact as to this claim and thus denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as well. The Court held that the “Plaintiff established a prima facie case of retaliation because she has shown that: 1) she availed herself of a right protected by the FMLA, 2) she was adversely affected by an employment decision, and 3) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.” (cites omitted). Id. Plaintiff used temporal proximity and the evidence of her bosses’ statements in which they made comments about the upcoming leave and excessive absences of Plaintiff. Id. Based on all this, the Court held that in this FMLA case plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish pretext.
Thus, if you are a Louisville FMLA worker and have a question as to whether you are entitled to FMLA leave, contact a Louisville FMLA lawyer. Mr. Alitowski, a Louisville overtime lawyer, can assist you and your co-workers in a failure to pay overtime lawsuit.
If you have been the subject of Louisville FMLA wrongful denial, please call and speak to a Louisville FMLA lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew S. Alitowski at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637) or contact us online. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!