ILNews

Leave act specific to alcoholism treatment

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
An Indiana man sued his former employer for firing him on grounds that he missed too much work, arguing that he was covered by the federal medical leave act because he was getting treatment for alcoholism.

But the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals determined today that the Family and Medical Leave Act doesn't protect workers from being dismissed. Because he missed three days of work just prior to being admitted for alcoholism treatment and that time combined with previous absences was enough for his employer to dismiss him, the court ruled.

The unanimous three-judge ruling in Richard L. Darst, as Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Krzysztof Chalimoniuk v. Interstate Brands Corp. and Tonia Gordon, No. 04-2460, affirms the previous judgment from U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder in Indianapolis, who'd granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

A footnote in the opinion shows that during the course of the litigation, Chalimoniuk filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and his termination claim became part of the bankruptcy estate. Trustee Darst has continued to prosecute this on behalf of the estate.

Chalimoniuk had worked at the baked goods manufacturer for 15 years before being dismissed in 2000 for excessive absenteeism. The employer operated on a point system, with 24 or more resulting in discharge. When this case's set of facts began, Chalimoniuk had a cutoff of 32 points, and he'd accumulated 23 already.

His situation began July 29, 2000, when he relapsed and missed three days of work. During those three days, he called his doctor and set up his admission to a treatment facility where he stayed Aug. 4-10 of that year. He filled out employment paperwork for leave starting July 29 and ending Aug. 11, but the employer's human resources manager Gordon investigated that date and determined the prior three days didn't fall under the act.

At issue in the case was whether his three days of missed work prior to being hospitalized classified as "treatment" under the FMLA, which allows eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year for various reasons, such as a "serious health condition" that the Department of Labor states can apply to substance abuse treatment.

"On the other hand, absence because of the employee's use of the substance, rather than for treatment, does not qualify for FMLA leave," Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner wrote, noting that Chalimoniuk provided no evidence that he was admitted to any facility for treatment on those three days. "Because he had exceeded the number of points allowable under IBC's absenteeism policy, the defendants were free to terminate his employment without running afoul of the FMLA."
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT