‘Catch 22′ in FMLA Case

July 30, 2013 by Leave a Comment

catch 22Remember Catch 22, the problem with no solution due to obtuse and cyclical reasoning?

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Missouri has issued a “Catch 22” opinion in denying legal relief to a welder who was fired after her employer forced her to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) even though she was healthy.

Trinity Marine Products, Inc. forced the welder, Tracy Walker, to take FMLA leave to get a doctor’s opinion about whether she had a serious medical condition. The doctor said she did not have a serious medical condition and was fit to work. Then Trinity required Walker to get a second opinion from a another doctor, who agreed with the first doctor and said Walker was fit for work . Then Trinity instructed Walker to consult a physician at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

The Vanderbilt physician sent Walker a letter in which he agreed that Walker had no serious medical condition and was able to return to work without restrictions. Walker presented the letter to Trinity on Sept. 8, 2009 whereupon Trinity fired Walker on the grounds that she had exhausted her FMLA leave in August 2009.

Walker sued, alleging that Trinity interfered with her rights under the FMLA by placing her on involuntary FMLA leave even though she was healthy and then refusing to permit her to return to work. Trinity responded that Walker could not seek relief under the FMLA because “she never suffered a serious health condition that entitled her to take FMLA leave in the first place.”

The appeals court agreed with Trinity’s cyclical logic. The court said the FMLA prohibits an employer from interfering with, restraining or denying an employee’s exercise or or attempt to exercise rights under the statute. However, the Court states:

“… Walker admits that she never suffered a serious health condition within the meaning of the Act, [so] we conclude that she has no right to the benefits provided by the FMLA.”

Walker also raised the issue of  fairness, claiming that Trinity treated her as having a serious health condition and it is only fair that Trinity should be bound by that designation.

The appeal scourt denied the equitable claim, finding that Walker did not demonstrate she suffered monetary losses as a result of Trinity’s alleged interference with her FMLA rights. The court rejected Walker’s argument that she was required to travel to go to numerous medical examinations at Trinity’s insistence.  According to the court: 

“Trinity’s mistaken belief that Walker suffered a serious health condition could not entitle Walker to the benefits of the FMLA.” 

SoWalker’s case has been thrown out of court, without ever reaching a jury.

The term Catch 22 is derived from  a 1961book  about the insanity of war by author Joseph Heller.  Here’s the passage:

“There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle..”

Filed Under: DEFINITIONS Tagged With: Catch 22, Family and Medical Leave Act, , Tracy Walker, Trinity Marine Products, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Missouri

Still OK to Fire Irresistable Attraction

July 19, 2013 by Leave a Comment

 

Dr. Knight

Dr. Knight

For the second time, the Supreme Court of Iowa has upheld a dentist’s decision to fire his long-time dental hygienist whom he found to be an irresistible attraction. 

 In its decision, the all-male Court focused upon the purported reason that the dentist fired the hygienist, rather than the dentist’s behavior. 

The Court said the legal question it must decide was: “Can a male employer terminate a long-time female employee because the employer’s wife, due to no fault of the employee, is concerned about the nature of the relationship between the employer and the employee?” 

The Court concluded that Dr. James H. Knight did nothing illegal when he fired  hygienist Melissa Nelson because Knight’s wife insisted that he do so -  not because of sex discrimination.

The Court upheld the firing last December but agreed to reconsider the case after a the ruling was widely criticized. (Ms. Nelson appeared in a skit lampooning the decision  on  Comedy Central.)  At that time, this blog observed that employees  often have little protections against discriminatory behavior when the employer is the boss.

Even though  Knight admitted that  the alleged threat to his marriage would not have existed if Nelson were male, the Iowa Court said the record did not support a conclusion that Knight took an adverse employment action against  Nelson “because of a gender-specific characteristic.” 

Nelson, who worked for  Knight, for about ten years,  alleged he violated the Iowa Civil Rights Act because she would not have been fired if she had been male.

The Court said Knight’s motive for firing Nelson was his desire to allay his wife’s concerns over Nelson’s “perceived”  threat to their marriage. “The civil rights laws seek to insure that employees are treated the same regardless of their sex or other protected status … , Dr. Knight’s unfair decision to terminate Nelson (while paying her a rather ungenerous one month’s severance) does not jeopardize that goal,” said the Court.

Nelson, who was 20 when she began working for Knight in 1999, denied ever flirting with Knight and said she considered him to be a friend and father figure.

 During the last year and a half of her employment, Knight began making sexual comments to her. Among other things, he complained that her clothing was too tight and asking her to put on a lab coat.  Knight acknowledged he told Nelson that “if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing.”

Nelson and Knight began texting during the last six months of Nelson’s employment.  Knight admits he asked her how often she experienced an orgasm. The Court found it significant that Nelson, who did not answer the text, “does not remember ever telling Dr. Knight not to text her or telling him that she was offended.”

Knight’s wife, Jeanne, discovered that Knight and Nelson were texting and demanded that he terminate Nelson’s employment because Nelson “was a big threat to our marriage.”

In both of its rulings the Court upheld a pre-trial ruling by a lower court judge, who granted Knight’s request for summary judgment in Nelson v. Knight, No. 11–1857 (Dec. 21, 2012).. Thus, the Court has twice concluded that there is absolutely no way that a jury could legally  decide against Knight and hold in favor Nelson. The Court’s holding means that there will be no trial in the case.

The Court notes that Nelson, did not file a sexual harassment lawsuit. or allege a hostile work environment.

 

Filed Under: DISPATCHES Tagged With: Comedy Central, Dental Assistant Melissa Nelson, , Iowa Civil Rights Act, , ,

Let Them Eat … Nothing?

July 13, 2013 by Leave a Comment

GrandfatherIt appears there is a new federal policy to let  old people and children go hungry.

 House Republicans succeeded in passing a Farm Bill last week by a vote of 216-208 by divesting funding for food stamps from federal agricultural policy. It was the first time food stamps had not been a part of the farm bill since 1973. Food stamps, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), historically constitute about 80 percent of the funding in a Farm Bill.

 Forty-seven percent of all  SNAP participants were children in fiscal year 2010, according to the  the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)(See Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2010. (2011). USDA FNS)

Long Term Unemployed

Meanwhile, the long term unemployed continue to lose benefits under the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program (EUC)  as a result of budget cuts under the so-called Sequester.- the automatic $85 billion across-the-board spending cuts in the federal budget for fiscal 2013 that took effect March 1.

 Recipients of  EUC benefits across the nation have seen their benefits reduced by a minimum of 10.7 percent weekly because of the sequester, according to the National Employment Law Project.  That’s a minimum!  North Carolina was dropped from the program altogether leaving thousands in the lurch.

The loss of EUC benefits has had a disparate impact upon older workers. The National Employment Law Project reports that older unemployed workers suffer the highest percentage of long-term unemployment of all age groups, with more than half of unemployed workers ages 45 and older out of work for longer than 27 weeks. In 2007, less than one in four unemployed older workers was out of work for more than half a year.

Food Insecure

 The USDA says  16.7 million children under 18 in the United States lived in households in 2011 where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life.   Food insecurity is harmful to any individual but can be devastating for  children due to their increased vulnerability and the potential for long-term consequences. 

In 2011, approximately 22 percent of American children – 16.1 million children – lived in poverty. (See DeNavas-Walt, C., B.D. Proctor, J.C. Smith. (2012). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011. U.S. Census Bureau)

 Current federal farm and food aid policy expires on Sept. 30.  If Congress fails to pass a new bill in time American farmers will fall back to a 1949 law governing the industry, which are exprected to lead to steep price increases on items such as milk.  Republicans reportedly want make massive cuts in food stamp funding.

 

Filed Under: DISPATCHES Tagged With: children in poverty, Emergency Unemployment Program, Farm Bill, food insecure, Food Stamps, long term unemployed, National Employment Law Project, Sequester, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
«Older Posts