Opinion ID: 3010150
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Family & Medical Leave Act claim

Text: Ms. Marzano's second claim is that the defendants violated her right, under the New Jersey Family Leave Act, to family leave . . . [and] to be restored by [the defendants] to [her previous position] or to an equivalent position of like seniority, status, employment benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment. N.J.S.A. 34:11B-7. While the Act does contain an exception when the employer experiences a reduction in force or layoff and the employee would have lost his position had the employee not been on leave, id., Ms. Marzano argues that the exception does not apply because the defendants' claim of financial distress, which was the stated reason for the alleged force reduction, is false. The district court rejected Ms. Marzano's argument that a genuine issue of material fact existed on the ground that she could not defeat the motion for summary judgment simply by challenging the employer's motivation for reducing its work force. Regardless of whether it was financially induced or whether it was motivated by some other legitimate business reason, there is no dispute that Partners experienced a reduction in force during the time plaintiff was out on maternity leave. Op. at 7-8. The district court concluded that the forcereduction provision of the Family & Medical Leave Act applied, and that summary judgment was warranted. Id. As we discussed at length supra in Part IV, there is a genuine question of fact regarding whether or not Ms. Marzano's employer experienced a reduction in force. Therefore, we cannot conclude on this record that the statutory exception applies to Ms. Marzano's termination.