Keith Cline worked for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., as a night maintenance supervisor.
ID: 464841 • Letter: K
Question
Keith Cline worked for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., as a night maintenance supervisor. When he suffered a recurrence of a brain tumor, he took a leave from work, which was covered by the Family Medical and Leave Act of 1993 and authorized by his employer. When he returned to work, his employer refused to allow him to continue his supervisory job and demoted him to the status of a regular maintenance worker. A few weeks later, the company fired him, ostensibly because he "stole" company time by clocking in thirteen minutes early for a company meeting. Cline sued Wal-Mart, alleging, among other things, that Wal-Mart had violated the FMLA by refusing to return him to his prior position when he returned to work. In view of these facts, do you think Wal-Mart violated the FMLA by refusing to return Cline to his prior position when he returned to work? Why or why not? Subject is legal environment of business.
Explanation / Answer
The company issued the leave to Cline under the effects of Family Medical & Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993. It means that Cline as well as the company both come under the purview of FMLA act. Here, FMLA act not only protect the job, but also, it protects the position of the employee when he or she come back to the company. In the scenario of non-availability of that job, similar positions with equal pay and other equal benefits are to be offered. But, it is not done by the company and they violate the FMLA act. Thus, Cline can sue the company.
Though, the company can give an argument of stolen time by Cline. But, it has taken place after the violation of the act by the company. Thus, they have to answer it first.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.