Opinion ID: 3010334
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cause for Termination

Text: The FMLA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees who request FMLA protected leave. 29 U.S.C. S 2615(a). Specifically, it prevents employers from denying employment to employees once they return from an FMLA leave period. Any such denial by the employer is actionable under the FMLA. Id. The record indicates that, had it not been for her July 29 absence, Victorelli would not have been terminated. Q. Was there no other procedure in the works, no other unresolved problems, nothing pending that would have caused her termination on August 1st, 1994, even if she had worked her complete shift July 29th, 1994? A. Not unless something would have happened while she was at work. Q. I understand that. But assuming she worked her shift without incident on July 29th, 1994, and she did work apparently without incident on July 30th and half of the shift or a little more than half the _________________________________________________________________ months to many years) often without affecting day to day ability to work or perform other activities but may cause episodic periods of incapacity of less than three days. Although persons with such underlying conditions generally visit a health-care provider periodically, when subject to flare-up or other incapacitating episode, staying home and self-treatment are often more effective than visiting the health care provider (e.g., the asthma-sufferer who is advised to stay home and inside due to the pollen count being too high). The definition of serious health condition in the rule has, therefore, been revised to include such conditions, even if the individual episodes of incapacity are not of more than three days duration. 60 Fed. Reg. 2180 at 2195. 14 shift on August 1st, would you have had that meeting. Is there any other reason that you would have had the meeting at twelve o'clock and terminated Kathy Victorelli? A. No.