It’s All In The Family – Court Dismisses Brothers’ Matching FMLA Claims

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
11/09/2011

The Poindexter brothers – Edward and Bobby – work as journeymen linemen for the Electric Department of the City of Sallisaw, Oklahoma.  In March 2010, the brothers both requested paid leave to care for their mother who was scheduled for hip surgery.  Pursuant to City policy, the brothers each were entitled to up to 10 days of paid sick leave for the care of an immediate family member.  The paid leave runs concurrently with unpaid FMLA leave, and City policy requires employees to use up all available paid leave before taking unpaid FMLA leave.  On March 10, the City granted the brothers’ dual requests for sick leave.  The brothers did not request FMLA leave, nor did the City inform them of their FMLA rights at that time.

About nine months later, in December 2010, a position for lead lineman opened up in the Electric Department.  The City did not promote either Poindexter into the supervisory job, as doing so would violate the City’s nepotism policy (which prohibits immediate family members from supervising each other).

Undoubtedly disappointed at this turn of events, the Poindexters then sued the City, alleging that (i) the City interfered with their FMLA rights by not informing them that their leave to care for their mother was FMLA-protected; and (ii) the City retaliated against them for exercising their FMLA rights by denying both brothers the promotion to lead lineman.  The court quickly disposed of the Poindexter brothers’ lawsuit.  First, the court found that even if the City violated the FMLA when it failed to inform the brothers of their FMLA rights, they still received all leave to which they were entitled and, therefore, suffered no prejudice.  Second, the court dismissed the retaliation claim, finding no causal connection between the brothers’ leave in March and the denial of promotion in December.  In addition, the brothers could not show that the City’s decision not to promote either of them, based on the nepotism policy, was a pretext for retaliation.   Poindexter v. Sallisaw, Civil Action No.: 11-046 (E.D. Okla. Nov. 7, 2011).

No Comments
prev next
Email Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Loading