CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Potter

Darcy Moore, a former supervisor at the United States Postal Service (USPS), filed a lawsuit against the Postmaster General of the USPS under Title VII and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). A trial on the Title VII claims resulted in a verdict for the defendants. The court then considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding Moore's FMLA claim, which alleged interference with FMLA benefits and retaliation. Moore claimed he was improperly charged as absent without leave instead of being granted FMLA leave and faced disciplinary action. The court found that Moore failed to follow the proper procedures for requesting leave, leading to the dismissal of his FMLA interference claim. Additionally, the court found no evidence to support a causal connection between Moore seeking FMLA leave and any adverse employment actions, thereby granting summary judgment and dismissing the FMLA retaliation claim and the entire complaint.

FMLATitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment LawRetaliationInterference with BenefitsAbsent Without LeaveFederal Civil ProcedurePro Se LitigationUSPS
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Sharp Electronics Corp.

Latayina Jones sued Sharp Electronics Corporation, alleging interference with her Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights, retaliation for exercising FMLA rights, and disability discrimination under the Tennessee Disability Act. Sharp moved for summary judgment on all claims. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee granted summary judgment to Sharp on both FMLA claims, finding Jones was not an eligible employee under the FMLA as she did not work the requisite hours. The court also rejected Jones's equitable estoppel argument and found she had exhausted her FMLA leave. Regarding the FMLA retaliation claim, the court again cited ineligibility and, alternatively, found Sharp provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination (inability to return to work) which Jones failed to rebut as pretextual. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Tennessee Disability Act claim and remanded it to the state circuit court.

FMLA InterferenceFMLA RetaliationSummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelEligible EmployeeHours of ServiceRolling Twelve-Month PeriodTennessee Disability ActSupplemental JurisdictionRemand
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bluitt v. Eval Co. of America, Inc.

Plaintiff Eartha L. Bluitt sued her former employer, Eval Company of America (EVALCA), under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), alleging wrongful termination. EVALCA moved for summary judgment, arguing Bluitt had waived her claims by signing a "Settlement Agreement and General Release" related to a prior Title VII sexual harassment lawsuit. The Court addressed whether FMLA rights could be waived, citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(d) which states employees cannot waive FMLA rights. Applying the Chevron analysis, the Court found that Congress had not directly spoken on the waiver issue in the FMLA, and section 105 of the FMLA provided support for the agency’s regulation. Therefore, the Court upheld the validity of the FMLA regulation prohibiting waivers, concluding that a genuine issue of fact existed regarding the waiver's validity, and denied EVALCA's motion for summary judgment.

FMLAWorker's CompensationSummary JudgmentWaiver of RightsEmployment LawRetaliationFederal QuestionBreach of ContractStatutory InterpretationChevron Deference
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eckert v. Schroeder, Joseph & Associates

Plaintiff Timothy Eckert, proceeding pro se, filed an action alleging anti-retaliation violations under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and breaches of New York State Attorney Disciplinary Rules. He sued several lawyers, law firms, and union representatives associated with his former employer, arguing they qualified as 'employers' under the FMLA and retaliated against him by making misrepresentations in a related FMLA case. The court granted Eckert's request to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the FMLA claims, finding that attorneys and union representatives are not 'employers' as defined by the FMLA. Furthermore, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law disciplinary claims.

FMLAAnti-retaliationPro Se LitigationSubject Matter JurisdictionIn Forma PauperisAttorney Disciplinary RulesNew York LawDefinition of EmployerSupplemental JurisdictionComplaint Dismissal
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Di Giovanna v. Beth Israel Medical Center

Joseph Di Giovanna, a former director at Beth Israel Medical Center (BIMC), sued BIMC and Continuum Health Partners, Inc. for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). He alleged interference with his FMLA rights by being discouraged from taking leave to care for his father and unlawful retaliation through termination for exercising those rights. Defendants sought summary judgment, asserting Di Giovanna was fired for documented poor performance, not FMLA use. The court, presided over by District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, granted the defendants' motion. It found no admissible evidence of FMLA interference and concluded that Di Giovanna failed to prove his termination was motivated by his exercise of FMLA rights, despite assuming a prima facie case for retaliation.

FMLARetaliationInterferenceSummary JudgmentEmployment LawDiscriminationFamily LeavePerformance ReviewHuman ResourcesFederal Court
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rollins v. Wilson County Government

Plaintiff Linda Rollins sued Wilson County Government and Ron Gilbert for wrongful termination under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Rollins argued that her termination, while on leave for a serious health condition, violated the FMLA. The key dispute revolved around whether her prior employment with the Wilson County School System could be aggregated with her employment at the Wilson County Government to meet the FMLA's 12-month employment eligibility requirement. Plaintiff cited federal regulations and the U.S. Bureau of Census to argue that the two entities constituted a single public agency for FMLA purposes. Defendants contended that under Tennessee law, the county government and the county school system are distinct legal entities. The Court, examining the creation, function, and administration of the two entities, found them to be separate and distinct under Tennessee law, thus preventing the aggregation of Rollins' employment periods. Consequently, Rollins did not meet the 12-month employment eligibility requirement for FMLA coverage. The Court also rejected Plaintiff's estoppel argument, finding the cited FMLA regulation provision was not applicable retroactively to 1993 when the claims accrued. Therefore, the Court granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case.

FMLAFamily Medical Leave ActWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentEmployer EligibilityPublic AgencyDistinct EntitiesState LawFederal LawAggregation of Employment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

FLOTO v. Manhattan Woods Golf Enterprises, LLC

Plaintiff was fired from Manhattan Woods Golf Club after taking a day off for his dying mother's emergency brain surgery. He sued for FMLA violation and breach of contract. A jury awarded him damages for both claims. Defendants subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that he qualified for FMLA leave. The court granted the defendants' motion regarding the FMLA claim (Count I), finding insufficient evidence that the plaintiff was 'needed to care for' his mother as per FMLA regulations, and dismissed the claim. The motion for reduction of FMLA damages became moot. However, the court denied the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract claim (Count II), upholding the jury's finding that the employer lacked 'reasonable cause' to terminate the plaintiff's employment.

FMLABreach of ContractJudgment as a Matter of LawEmployment LawEmployee TerminationFamily and Medical LeavePsychological CareDamagesPost-trial MotionsRule 50
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

Villegas v. Albertsons, LLC

Plaintiff Arturo Villegas, an employee at Albertsons, brought claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for interference and retaliation, and a defamation claim against Albertsons, LLC and his supervisor, Antonio Labrado. Villegas alleged FMLA interference due to schedule adjustments instead of FMLA leave for his daughter's medical appointments and Mr. Labrado discouraging leave. He also claimed retaliation after his termination for alleged theft and defamation by Mr. Labrado. The Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants, finding no prejudice for the FMLA interference claim as Villegas attended all appointments and received his normal paycheck. The FMLA retaliation claim failed due to lack of a prima facie case and no proof of pretext. The defamation claim also failed as no defamatory statement was made by Mr. Labrado, and even if it had, it would be qualifiedly privileged.

FMLA InterferenceFMLA RetaliationDefamationSummary JudgmentWorkplace TheftSupervisor LiabilityNotice RequirementsQualified PrivilegeMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkEmployment Law
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. AUTOZONERS, LLC

Karen Taylor initiated an action against AutoZoners, LLC, alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The case involved cross-motions for partial summary judgment concerning the FMLA claim. Taylor, an order selector, sustained a back injury and argued her absences should be protected under FMLA due to a serious health condition. However, the court determined that Taylor failed to provide sufficient evidence of a 'serious health condition,' specifically lacking proof of sustained incapacity or a chronic condition requiring continuous treatment as defined by FMLA regulations. Consequently, the court granted AutoZoners' motion for summary judgment, denied Taylor's cross-motion, and dismissed the FMLA interference and retaliation claims, with the state law claims dismissed without prejudice.

FMLAFamily and Medical Leave ActRetaliationWorkers' Compensation ClaimSummary JudgmentBack InjuryLumbar StrainSerious Health ConditionIncapacityLight Duty
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Slaughter v. American Building Maintenance Co.

Ellis L. Slaughter, a former employee of American Building Maintenance Co. of New York (ABM), moved for partial summary judgment on his Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claim and to dismiss ABM's affirmative defense of collateral estoppel. Slaughter was terminated by ABM due to excessive absences under a 'no fault' policy, stemming from recurring back pain, a condition known to ABM's predecessor. The court found that Slaughter's notice to ABM regarding his FMLA-qualifying leave was insufficient for summary judgment in his favor, as merely calling in sick did not adequately inform ABM of his FMLA-protected condition, and doctors' notes were provided with delay. However, the court granted Slaughter's motion to dismiss ABM's collateral estoppel defense, ruling that a prior arbitration decision, which upheld his termination for excessive absenteeism, did not preclude his federal statutory FMLA claim because the issues resolved were distinct and the arbitrator did not consider FMLA specifics. The motion for summary judgment was thus granted in part and denied in part.

FMLASummary Judgment MotionCollateral EstoppelAbsenteeism PolicyTermination of EmploymentBack InjuryMedical Leave NoticeLabor LawEmployee RightsPreclusive Effect of Arbitration
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 115 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational