Smith v. CallTech Communications
In the winter and spring of 2006 Stephanie Smith was working as an operator in a call center run by the company CallTech Communications. Smith also suffered from major depression and dysthymic disorder (long term depression lasting at least 2 years). Because of her illness, Smith missed multiple days of work, and each time made sure to clear them as FMLA leave so that she would not accumulate “points.” These points were assessed each time an employee was tardy or absent, and too many points was grounds for termination.
In May of 2006 Smith missed some more work, and CallTech asked for a doctor’s note to verify that the leave was FMLA related, or else she would be terminated. Smith slipped into depression and stopped reporting to work 3 days later. The court ruled that CallTech violated Smith’s rights that say she has 15 days to get a doctor’s note verifying the leave. Had they not threatened termination, or given her earlier notice, they would have complied.
White v. University of Pennsylvania
Janet White worked in the graduate student department at the University of Pennsylvania. She also suffers from bipolar II disorder that was mostly under control. However when she had an episode in 2012 that she was unable to get under control, she decided to take an 8 week leave of absence.
Upon returning to work, after visiting with psychologists and support groups, White had doctor’s notes verifying that the leave was legitimate. However, the university gave her a negative performance review, and demoted her due to the leave.
Rodriguez v. University of Miami Hospital
Iliana Rodriguez worked for the hospital in 2012. Her case alleged that the employer both retaliated, and interfered with her work after she returned from her FMLA related leave. The retaliation aspect was dropped, the interference aspect was upheld.
Rodriguez returned to work, but was put into a different position that, although had the same pay and benefits, was not substantially equal. She claimed that her employer interfered with her right to work. She also claimed that the employer retaliated against her by firing her six weeks after returning to work. This part of the case was dropped due to her inability to prove that the dismissal was due to her leave of absence, and not due to her being unable to get along with her supervisor.
Contact Phillips Dayes
In each case the employee needed some time away from work. In each case, the employer did not uphold their end of the law by returning the employee to the same job, without repercussions for being absent. Phillips Dayes attorneys know and understand the Family and Medical Leave Act. They can help you build a case against your employer if you have had your rights violated. Fill out the contact form, or call 1-800-917-4000 right away to schedule your free initial case review.