On October 28, 2009 President Obama approved legislation expanding the Family Medical Leave Act (FLMA).  The amendment to the FLMA extends the availability of exigency leave to the family of regular armed forces in addition to activated Reserve and National Guard members.  The amendment also expands caregiver leave for service members and veterans.  The amendment was included in Section 565 of the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647).

The FLMA previously provided up to 12 weeks of exigency leave for family members of Reserve and National Guard members called or about to be called to active duty.  This amendment expands coverage to the families of regular military members that are deployed or about to be deployed.  The burden and struggles faced by the family of any deployed service member is tremendous, regardless of their duty status. 

The Act also expands caregiver coverage to apply to the aggravation of pre-existing conditions as well as to veterans for up to 5 years after their separation or retirement from the military.  Caregivers are able to take up to 26 weeks of leave per year.  This coverage is extended to injuries that existed before the individual joined the military which were aggravated by service in the line of duty.  And, perhaps most importantly coverage is extended to conditions that were not apparent until after the individual became a veteran.  This includes post traumatic stress disorder, more commonly referred to as PTSD, and brain injuries which often are not manifest during an individual’s military service.

The vast improvements in our soldiers’ body armor are saving lives. However, many of the individuals saved by these improvements are coming home with missing limbs and other traumatic injury or illness. The adjustments to civilian life take time and soldiers need the support of their family members.  This Act is an important step in giving these warriors much needed help. 

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Family Medical Leave Act Practice, click here.

On October 22, 2009, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court ruling granting summary judgment against TELG client Dean Inman.  Mr. Inman was the former Vice President of Technology at Klockner Pentaplast of America (KPA) based at their Charlottesville, Virginia location.  Klockner Pentaplast, KPA’s parent company is an international manufacturer perhaps best known for making rigid plastic films and blister packaging. 

Mr. Inman’s suit claims he was fired for being too old while the company underwent efforts to create a revitalized and younger appearance to lure potential buyers of the firm.  The appellate court issued a per curium decision holding that the trial court erred when it granted the motion since the facts alleged are sufficient to show that Mr. Inman was discriminated against on account of his age.  The case was argued by Adam Augustine Carter, a principal at The Employment Law Group® law firm, with R. Scott Oswald on the brief as well.  The AARP filed a brief as amicus curiae urging reversal in favor of Mr. Inman.  Dan Kohrman and Laurie McCann were on the brief for the AARP.

A copy of this opinion is available here.  For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Age Discrimination Practice, click here.

On October 9, 2009, the California Court of Appeals issued a decision in Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. In a case which cautions defendants against over-burdening a plaintiff in the employment context, the Court reviewed “what well may be the most oppressive motion ever presented to a superior court.”  In this opinion, the Court took on the growing problem of abuse of the summary judgment procedure, particularly in employment litigation, “especially by deep pocket defendants,” seeking “to overwhelm less well funded defendants.”

Defendants filed an astounding 1,056 page motion for summary judgment, an 1,150 page further reply, and hundreds of evidentiary objections to plaintiff’s response.  Regarding the numerous objections made by the defendants, the Court asked, “Can this be serious?  Can counsel see themselves rising at trial with those objections while plaintiff is testifying before a jury?”  Given the quality of the objections, the Court reasoned that apparently the defendants “assign[ed] the most junior lawyer to ‘do the objections,’” and suggested that “[p]erhaps a wiser practice would be to have the most experienced lawyer, presumably with a better understanding of the law of evidence, deal with the objections.”

The motion was harshly criticized by the Court both for its length and frivolity.  The Court reversed the trial court’s granting of the defendants’ motion and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

For information on The Employment Law Group® Law Firm’s Employment Discrimination Law practice, click here

On October 16, 2009, a magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a protective order filed by the defense.  The defendant in this case, Joseph Zengerle, was seeking to protect former employment records which go back over 20 years.

Mr. Zengerle and his employer, George Mason University, are being sued for sexual harassment, retaliation, assault and battery, and pay discrimination based on sex.  The plaintiff, Kyndra Rotunda, contends that Mr. Zengerle was fired by three previous employers, something the defendant denies.  The plaintiff is seeking information regarding the credibility of Mr. Zengerle and to see if he has any past incidences of sexual harassment.  This favorable ruling was covered by The Blog of Legal Times.  You can read their coverage here.

Mrs. Rotunda is represented by solo practitioner Rick Seymour with The Employment Law Group® law firm serving as local counsel.  For information about The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.