Skip to main content

Male Employee Asks for Time Off to Accompany Pregnant Wife to Doctor? It Is Wise Not to Fire the Employee For Requesting Time Off...


Rice v. Kellermeyer Company - US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division


Facts:  In early 2012, Ronald Rice, the VP of Sales at Kellermeyer Company announced to his co-workers that his wife was pregnant with their first child.  On June , 2012, Rice requested permission to use accrued vacation time from June 11 through June 15, partly because of "an unexpected appointment" for his pregnant wife.  Rice's supervisor denied the request for Rice to use paid leave for June 14 through June 15 and told him that if he took time off, it would be unpaid.

Rice subsequently requested FMLA paperwork from the director of HR to allow him to attend the appointment.  Three days afterward, Rice was fired.  Rice brought suit against Kollermeyer for violations of the FMLA by interfering with, restraining, or denying Rice the exercise of his rights under the FMLA and retaliating against him by discharging him for asserting his rights under the FMLA.  Kollermeyer moved for summary judgment and argued that Rice was fired as a result of months of failure to reach goals, execute plans, and meet the expectations of a VP of Sales.  

Holding:  The District Court denied Kollermeyer's motion for summary judgment and held there was sufficient evidence to show that Kollermeyer may have discriminated against Rice and fired him for exercising his rights under the FMLA.  As a result of there being sufficient evidence to create a fact issue, the Court denied the motion and held that a jury should determine whether FMLA violations occurred as a result of Rice's firing.

Judgment:  The District Court denied Kollermeyer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there was sufficient evidence presented for a jury to find that Kollermeyer fired Rice as a result of Rice's request for time off to accompany his wife to a doctor's appointment for the upcoming pregnancy and a subsequent violation of the FMLA by Kollermeyer for firing Rice after FMLA leave was requested.

It is important to remember that the Court was not determining whether there were FMLA violations here.  Rather, the question was whether there was a genuine issue of material fact for a jury to determine that an FMLA violation had actually occurred.  The Court relied upon the evidence presented to show that a reasonable juror could determine that Kollermeyer discriminated against Rice as a result of the requested time off to accompany his pregnant wife to the doctor along with the fact that the evidence established that Kollermeyer might have retaliated against Rice for requesting FMLA leave.

The Takeaway:  Another day, another employer in trouble over a pregnancy related issue.  It is important to remember that pregnancy related employment issues do not just surface with female employees; male employees can have also pregnancy related employment issues that must be dealt with.  Employers need to be sure to carefully handle requests for time off and FMLA leave when the reason is for a pregnancy issue.  The EEOC has made pregnancy discrimination a focal point lately...and from the looks of it, court's will not be lenient against employers who discriminate either.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Helmick

Date:  July 15, 2014

Opinion:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-3_13-cv-00263/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-3_13-cv-00263-0.pdf


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more