ILNews

DTCI: FMLA Update

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

gessling By Joshua B. Gessling

Finding that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had not previously addressed the issue, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana recently held that a pre-eligibility request for post-eligibility leave may be protected under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

In Morkoetter v. Sonoco Products Co., No. 3:11-CV-485 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 29, 2013), the employee alleged that he informed his employer of his disabilities and plans to take time away from work after he became eligible for leave under the FMLA. The employee alleged that after informing his employer of the need for post-eligibility leave, but approximately five weeks before reaching his eligibility date, the employer terminated his employment. The employee claimed the employer fired him because of his pre-eligibility request for post-eligibility leave in violation of the FMLA. The employer moved to dismiss. Because the employee had not worked for the employer for 12 months and, consequently, was not yet eligible for FMLA leave, the employer argued the employee’s termination did not constitute retaliation.

Relying heavily upon the rationale in Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmty., Inc., 666 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2012), the court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss the FMLA claim and held that termination based upon a pre-eligibility request for post-eligibility leave may constitute a viable retaliation claim under the FMLA. Since the FMLA requires that employees provide employers with notice of foreseeable future leave, the court reasoned that the aims of the FMLA would be compromised if employees were required to provide notice of future leave while remaining exposed to retaliation for complying with the law.

Given this growing trend, employers should be mindful that certain pre-eligibility requests may be protected under the FMLA, reassess internal policies in light of this development, and administer leave requests accordingly.•

Mr. Gessling is an associate at Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn LLP in Evansville. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT