Chapter 4 - Constitutional Authority to Regulate Business



BLTS-8e Case Problem with Sample Answer

CHAPTER 33: LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW

33.7 Case Problem with Sample Answer

Jennifer Willis worked for Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc. (CCE), in Louisiana as a senior account manager. On a Monday in May 2003, Willis called her supervisor to tell him that she was sick and would not be able to work that day. She also said that she was pregnant, but she did not say she was sick because of the pregnancy. On Tuesday, she called to ask where to report to work and was told that she could not return without a doctor’s release. She

said that she had a doctor’s appointment on “Wednesday,” which her supervisor understood to be the next day. Willis meant the following Wednesday. More than a week later, during which time Willis did not contact CCE, she was told that she had violated CCE’s “No Call/No Show” policy.

Under this policy “an employee absent from work for three consecutive days without notifying the supervisor during that period will be considered to have voluntarily resigned.” She was fired. Willis filed a suit in a federal district court against CCE under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). To be eligible for FMLA leave, an employee must inform an employer of the reason for the leave. Did Willis meet this requirement? Did CCE’s response to Willis’s absence violate the FMLA? Explain. [Willis v. Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc., 445 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2006)]

Sample Answer:

To be protected under the FMLA, an employee must inform the employer of the reason for the leave, which Willis clearly did not do. Although she had called in sick for one day, she did not indicate that she was unable to work due to pregnancy and did not ask for any leave of absence from work. In fact, Willis called the next day after being sick and asked where to report to work, which shows that she was not intending to take FMLA leave. Because she did not inform her employer that she was taking leave and did not show up for work for more than a week, the employer was justified in terminating her employment. The court granted a summary judgment in favor of CCE, holding that Willis had not asked for leave as the FMLA required. “Indeed her desire to return to work indicated that she was not requesting medical leave.” Willis appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, asserting that CCE placed her on FMLA leave when it told her that she could not return to work without a doctor’s release. She also argued that while on this leave she was fired for violating company policy and this discharge “interfered with her rights under the FMLA.” The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The appellate court recognized that it is the employer’s responsibility to designate leave as “FMLA-qualifying” and acknowledged that an employee may be placed on “involuntary” FMLA leave if the reason for the absence qualifies as a “serious health condition.” The court explained, however, that “the employee [must] provide sufficient notice to an employer of the need to take FMLA leave; in other words, .  .  . the employee [must] provide notice to the employer of a serious health condition.” In this case, Willis “did not tell her supervisor that she was sick due to complications in her pregnancy and did not assert that she clearly linked her sickness and her pregnancy. A complaint of sickness will not suffice as notice of a need to take FMLA leave.”

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download