Opinion ID: 1042298
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Possible FMLA Leave

Text: In late 2008, Ion learned of Chevron’s leave policies for “employee[s] going through ‘a life-changing event’ like a divorce.” Ion was “hesitant” to ask for leave because it was a busy time at the chemistry lab, which had an audit scheduled for March 2009. He was also hesitant because he knew that another chemist, Pam Miller, would be taking maternity leave in August of 2009. Nevertheless, he alleges that he discussed his interest in potential leave with Dressler, including asking for advice about broaching the subject with Ogborn, who “could be difficult and had to be approached delicately.” 2 Ion submitted a declaration indicating that the facts section of his response to the motion for summary judgment was, with some exceptions, “based on [his] personal knowledge.” He “declare[d] under penalty of perjury that [these] statements are true and correct.” Although unsworn documents usually cannot raise fact issues precluding summary judgment, Ion’s declaration can be considered pursuant to the statutory exception found in 28 U.S.C. § 1746. 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2) (2006) (permitting unsworn declarations to substitute for an affiant’s oath if the statements contained therein are made “under penalty of perjury” and verified as “true and correct.”); see Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300, 1306–07 (5th Cir. 1988). 2 Case: 12-60682 Document: 00512388400 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/26/2013 No. 12-60682 Ion testified that the chemistry lab held an all-day planning meeting on February 5, 2009. During a break, he claims that he told Ogborn that he had been granted custody of his son for six months. Ion further alleges having informed Ogborn that he had moved into a rental home much closer to the plant; that he had enrolled his son in a daycare close to the plant; that his son was crying, refusing to eat, and not adjusting well; and that he would be spending time with his son during lunchtime to help him adjust. Ion asked to meet with Ogborn on February 9 to discuss taking a leave from work, and, according to Ion, Ogborn agreed to meet. Additionally, Ion asked Ogborn for permission to leave the February 5 meeting to join his son for lunch, and Ion reports that Ogborn “readily gave [him] permission.” Ion left the meeting and returned while it was still in progress, which he asserts that “[e]verybody in the department saw.” Ogborn, on the other hand, testified that he has no memory of a conversation with Ion on February 5, 2009. He also testified that he has no memory of Ion ever expressing an interest in taking leave. According to Ion, Ogborn cancelled the February 9 meeting to discuss leave because he was too busy. Over the next two or three weeks, Ion says, Ogborn “cancelled another two meetings to discuss [his] request.” Finally, Ogborn allegedly told Ion that they would have to wait to discuss the possible leave until after the audit, which would end March 13, 2009.