Case ID: f-appx_429/html/0638-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Inas S. SHAABAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COVENANT AVIATION SECURITY, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-17763.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 13, 2011.
    Filed April 26, 2011.
    Michael Edward Adams, Esquire, Law Offices of Michael E. Adams, Redwood City, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Kurt Bockes, Joseph A. Schwachter, Esquire, Littler Mendelson, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: FERNANDEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLS, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Lesley Wells, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Inas Shaaban challenges the district court’s summary dismissal of her suit alleging her termination from Covenant Aviation Security violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Ms. Shaaban asserts the doctrines of equitable estoppel and equitable tolling prevent Covenant from asserting that her FMLA leave ended prior to 1 October 2007.

In order to assert equitable estoppel, Ms. Shaaban must demonstrate reasonable reliance on Covenant’s conduct or representations regarding approval of the duration of her FMLA leave. See Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U.S. 51, 60, 66, 104 S.Ct. 2218, 81 L.Ed.2d 42 (1984); Naton v. Bank of California, 649 F.2d 691, 696 (9th Cir.1981). Ms. Shaaban unreasonably assumed that Covenant’s verbal approval of her FMLA leave eligibility also encompassed the duration of the approved leave. Further, Ms. Shaaban did not exhibit reasonable reliance when she failed to review the expected and received written terms of her FMLA approved leave. Finally, Ms. Shaaban’s lack of reasonable reliance extinguishes her equitable tolling claim.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.