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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT