Skip to main content

Eleventh Circuit Upholds Jury Verdict For Plaintiff Under Family and Medical Leave Act

The FMLA protects an eligible employee from employer "interference" with her rights and also prohibits any retaliation for exercising or attempting to exercise them.  The Eleventh Circuit re-emphasized the difference in proof in a case brought by an employee of the Broward Sheriff's Office who was fired for alleged "performance deficiencies" a few days after she requested FMLA leave:

“To prove FMLA interference, an employee must demonstrate that he was denied a benefit to which he was entitled under the FMLA.” Martin v. Brevard Cnty. Pub. Sch., 543 F.3d 1261, 1266-67 (11th Cir. 2008). “[T]he employer’s motives are irrelevant.” Id. at 1267 (quoting Strickland v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Birmingham, 239 F.3d 1199, 1208 (11th Cir. 2001)).

In such a case, the employer is entitled to prove, as an affirmative defense, that the personnel action was based upon other reasons wholly unrelated to the FMLA. Here, the jury expressly rejected the employer's proffered reasons for terminating the plaintiff and awarded her damages on her claim of unlawful interference with her right to request FMLA leave.  The slip opinion in  Spakes v. Broward County Sheriff's Office is available at United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

For expert assistance with FMLA matters, go to mccoyesquire.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Federal Employee's Request for Reasonable Accommodation is a Protected Activity - Agency May Not Retaliate

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §701 et seq., protects a federal worker from discrimination because he or she has a disability.  The Act requires agencies to provide reasonable accommodation to an individual's physical or mental disabilities unless the agency can prove that the requested accommodation will create an undue hardship.  In this regard the Act incorporates the protections afforded under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which includes more recent and more detailed requirements.  Accommodation may involve the removal of physical barriers.  It may also include job restructuring and part-time or modified work schedules.  Thus, a flexible work schedule may qualify as a reasonable accommodation. Both laws expressly prohibit employers from taking retaliatory actions against employees who oppose acts or practices which are made unlawful, for making charges and/or for participating in related investigations or proceedings.  It is also unlawful to c
Post a Comment
Read more

Circumstantial Evidence of Age and Race Discrimination

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated a district court’s order granting summary judgment to the employer in a case alleging age and race discrimination, Kilgore v. Trussville Development, LLC dab Hilton Garden, Inc., 2016 U.S.app. LEXIS 5464; 646 Fed. Apps. 765 (11th Cir. 2016).  The text of the decision can be found at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3188580/valarie-kay-kilgore-v-trussville-development-llc/ Ms. Kilgore presented circumstantial evidence which supported an inference that the employer’s claim that she was fired for being rude to guests was a pretext.  She presented evidence that she was replaced by two newly hired employees who were younger and African-American - Ms. Kilgore was a Caucasian woman in her sixties.  In addition, her superiors had made derogatory statements about her age (that she was “a stubborn old woman” and “too old”) and also about her race (that she was “the wrong color.”  Such comments are circumstantial evidence of d
Post a Comment
Read more

Indirect Proof of Discrimination

Title VII cases often are resolved without a trial.  Whether the District Court properly entered summary judgment for the employer is the subject of many Eleventh Circuit appeals.  A significant decision, Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) held that a triable issue of fact exists if the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents "a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decision maker."  And it is well-settled that if a plaintiff presents a prima facie case together with evidence tending to discredit the employer's proffered reasons for the alleged discriminatory action the trier of fact may reasonably conclude that the employer intentionally discriminated.  See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 U.S. 133 (2000) in which the U.S. Supreme Court so held, stating specifically that no additional evidence of discrimination is needed to create a
Post a Comment
Read more