Arrigo v. Link

In FMLA action alleging that defendant-employer improperly terminated plaintiff-employee in retaliation for taking FMLA leave, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff’s request to admit notes taken by defendant’s owner at meeting with plaintiff prior to her return to work from leave of absence, during which both individuals discussed plaintiff’s anxiety condition. While plaintiff argued that said notes were relevant to demonstrate owner’s hostility towards her medical condition, information contained in note was irrelevant since, although notes mentioned plaintiff’s medical condition and her medications, they made no mention of fact that she had been on or will be taking future FMLA leave. Dist. Ct. also properly limited testimonies of certain supervisors concerning plaintiff’s alleged good job performance to instances where said supervisors expressed said opinions to defendant’s owner since only relevant opinion of plaintiff’s job performance was opinion of owner who made decision to terminate plaintiff. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to add Title VII and ADA claims, where: (1) said motion was made four months after deadline for amendment of pleadings; and (2) plaintiff should have sought leave to stay instant lawsuit until she obtained relevant right-to-sue letter for her other actions.