March 10, 2009

4th Circuit: "Magic Words" Are Not Required to Invoke FMLA Rights (Dotson v. Pfizer, March 4, 2009)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's recent decision in Dotson v. Pfizer explains that Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") rights are triggered by an employee's request for leave covered by the FMLA, without regard to whether the employee mentions "FMLA" or uses any other term of art in the statute. Since the Fourth Circuit decides appeals from Virginia federal courts, the decision is particularly important for Virginia employers.

In this case, employee James Dotson (Dotson) was awarded more than $722,000 on his FMLA interference and retaliation claims, including $333,305 in statutory liquidated damages, $375,000 in attorneys' fees, and $14,265 in costs. Each party appealed different rulings of the trial court. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment, except as to the trial court's denial of pre-judgment interest. Holding that pre-judgment interest on FMLA damage awards is mandatory, the Fourth Circuit remanded the case, directing the trial court to recalculate Dotson's damage and fee awards to include pre-judgment interest.

The following arguments made by Pfizer and rejected by the Fourth Circuit provide clear guidance to employers that the burden is on employers -- not employees -- to understand and properly apply the FMLA:

Continue reading "4th Circuit: "Magic Words" Are Not Required to Invoke FMLA Rights (Dotson v. Pfizer, March 4, 2009)" »

June 24, 2008

4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Employment Law Decisions

In two recent decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit focused on relevant standards of review for two issues of interest to Virginia immigration and employment lawyers:

In Woods v. Prudential Ins. Co., No. 07-1580 (June 11, 2008), the Fourth Circuit concluded that the trial court erroneously applied the "abuse-of-discretion" standard of review to plaintiff's ERISA claim instead of the more rigorous "de novo" standard of review to determine whether the plan administrator properly denied plaintiff's benefit claim.

In Teshome-Gebreegziabher v. Mukasey, No. 08-1060 (June 16, 2008), the Fourth Circuit clarified that the "clear and convincing" standard of review applies to an immigrant's motion to stay deportation.

May 21, 2008

Virginia Circuit Court: Phillips v. BJ's Wholesale Club Reminds Employers of the Importance of Workplace Safety Policies

The Virginian-Pilot reports that a former employee filed suit in Norfolk Circuit Court seeking $65 million against BJ's Wholesale Club for failing to warn or take precautions to protect the former employee from her estranged husband who came to the workpace, killed the employee's sister, and shot the employee. According to the article, the lawsuit alleges that on the day of the shooting, the employee's manager at BJ's received several phone calls and a visit from the husband threatening the employee, but the Company did not warn or protect the employee.

While the outcome of this case remains to be seen, an important take-away for employers is that it is critically important to develop, implement, and communicate to employees specific procedures to respond to workplace threats.

May 15, 2008

Federal District Court: FLSA Collective Action Against Smithfield Foods Inc.

According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, approximately 230 workers have filed a federal lawsuit against Smithfield Foods Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging that the Company failed to pay 30-45 minutes of daily overtime for donning and doffing of protective gear, walking to and from the production line, and working after the day officially ends.