Opinion ID: 28916
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: court appearance. In late January, therefore,

Text: Williams worked as a utility laborer for Lindsay and Milazzo again met with Williams Martin from July 1993 to April 2000. He fre- and warned him that further absences or tarquently missed work, from a few hours to a diness would result in progressive discipline of few days, in part because his daughters suffer a one-day suspension, then a three-day from sickle cell anemia. For most of suspension, then discharge. Williams’s tenure at Martin, his supervisor, Larry Lindsay, tried to accommodate This meeting did little to affect Williams’s Williams’s absences. In particular, Lindsay attendance; he missed work three times in the allowed Williams to used accrued annual leave first two weeks of February. Again, none was to care for his children; if Williams had no related to his daughters’ physical problems. annual leave, Lindsay would allow him to take After the third absence, Lindsay, Milazzo, and unpaid leave. Albert Johnson, the plant manager, met with Williams to discuss these absences and to sus- In December 1999, however, Martin began pend him for one day. to enforce its leave policy more vigorously be- cause of high rates of absenteeism and tardi- Williams then failed to report to work after ness. These new measures fell especially hard his one-day suspension, which promptly on Williams, not only because of his afflicted earned him another meeting on February 25 daughters, but also because Martin suspected with Lindsay, Milazzo, and Johnson; a threeWilliams was performing odd jobs for other day suspension; and a warning that future abemployers on Martin’s time. Lindsay and Guy sences or tardiness would result in discharge. Milazzo, the human resources manager, met Lindsay, Milazzo, and Johnson also asked Wilwith Williams in late December to discuss his liams whether he wanted to apply for FMLA excessive absences and tardiness. Lindsay and leave to care for his children, but Williams Milazzo required Williams to begin accounting specifically declined to request FMLA leave. for every time he missed work, not just the times he missed because of his daughters’ After Williams returned from his affliction. suspension, his attendance improved briefly. Aside from an authorized absence on March 1, Williams nonetheless missed work five to care for his daughters, he did not miss any work during March. He did arrive late for work on April 5, but Martin excused the tar- 1 (...continued) diness at the time because of Williams’s imoften referred to the defendant as “Colfax.” In this proved attendance record in March. appeal, however, the caption refers only to “Roy O. Martin Co. LLC”; we therefore refer to the With no earlier notice, Williams announced defendant as “Martin.” 2 around noon on April 24 that he needed the vorable to the non-moving party, “show that afternoon off to care for his daughters. Lind- there is no genuine issue as to any material say refused to give permission, because he fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 needed Williams for a busy afternoon at the U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). A dispute about a site. Williams left anyway and did not return, material fact is “genuine” if the evidence so Martin fired him the next day. would permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. at 248.