Lutes v. United Trailers, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-employee’s action alleging that defendant terminated plaintiff in retaliation for attempting to exercise rights under Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Record showed that plaintiff had called into work on grounds that he had rib injury, but, after calling into work for few days, had failed to call into work on three consecutive days in violation of defendant’s attendance policy. As such, Dist. Ct. could properly conclude that plaintiff had failed to establish any causal connection between his alleged attempt to seek relief under FMLA and his termination, and plaintiff otherwise did not dispute defendant’s proffered reason for terminating him. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s claim that defendant had failed to properly notify him of his FMLA rights, where: (1) jury could find that plaintiff’s rib injury qualified as serious health condition; (2) question remained as to whether plaintiff provided sufficient notice of his need for FMLA leave; (3) defendant had failed to determine and notify plaintiff as to whether his request for leave would be designated as FMLA leave; (4) Dist. Ct. needs to determine whether plaintiff’s failure to abide by defendant’s attendance policy excused defendant’s failure to notify plaintiff of his FMLA rights; and (5) Dist. Ct. must determine whether plaintiff can show any prejudice arising out of defendant’s failure to notify him of his FMLA rights.