Branham Vs. Gannet Satellite Information Network Inc.
Branham Vs. Gannet Satellite Information Network Inc.
Employment law is a vast field that encompasses many different aspects which provide protection for employees and employers. The FMLA provides family medical leave in certain conditions. However, it is not just a blank field as there are certain criteria which must be met to qualify for and receive leave under the FMLA. Ty Hyderally has many years of successful litigation experience in the field of employment law and helps educate employers and their employees as to the stipulations which are set forth in order for employees to benefit from this type of medical leave. In qualifying cases an employee can file for a leave under the FMLA. However, all of the stipulations must be met for their job position to be secure upon their return. However, if the paperwork requirements are not fulfilled and the proper information not conveyed, an employee can be denied the protections afforded by the FMLA.
Branham v. Gannet Satellite Information Network, Inc.
Deborah Branham worked as a receptionist at the Dickson Herald newspaper which Gannet Satellite Information Network owns. When she began being absent from work repeatedly starting on November 7, 2006 the company terminated her based on excessive absenteeism. Branham’s son was ill and then she also became ill. She had an appointment with Dr. Singer and was told that she was able to return to work on November 14, which was the next day. However, Branham claimed that even though she had been released to return to work, she would need to be off in order to attend several doctor appointments throughout the months of November and December. The office manager, Buhler, explained that Branham needed to come in to sign a short term disability form. Branham did not report to work regular hours for quite some time but claimed that she completed some of her obligations off hours and from home. Her physician’s office faxed a medical certification form in to Buhler on November 17, 2006. The certification stated that Branham’s condition was better and she would be able to perform her regular duties commencing on November 14. It was also indicated on the form that Branham was not in need of intermittent leave. Branham worked with the doctor’s office to try to obtain another form from her regular physician but no changes were made. When she did not return to work by November 24, she was mailed a termination letter. On Tuesday, November 28, she learned that she had been terminated. That evening after 6 the employer received a fax which contained a new certification form which was signed by a nurse practitioner which worked at Branham’s doctor’s office. The new certification form stated that Branham had an illness which had begun on May 6, 206 and would prevent her from returning to work until January 1, 2007.
Branham Files Suit
Branham filed a suit against Gannet alleging that they had violated the FMLA by terminating in retaliation for attempting to seek FMLA leave. She also alleged that the company fired her on the 11th day and per FMLA an employer must allow 15 days for an employee to provide proper documentation. The court noted that Gannet had indeed terminated Branham on the 11th day but action only came after the negative certification received from her doctor’s office. She failed to prove that she had a serious illness or condition and that Gannet was not required to allow the remainder of the 15 day period once they received notification that Branham could return to work. However, when Branham asked for time off, Buhler, the company official made no mention of the need for Branham to provide certification according to the law. Since the company did not explain to Branham her responsibility of providing medical certification and that she had 15 days to produce it, the court granted summary in favor of Branham.
Branham v. Gannet Satellite Information Network, Inc.
Deborah Branham worked as a receptionist at the Dickson Herald newspaper which Gannet Satellite Information Network owns. When she began being absent from work repeatedly starting on November 7, 2006 the company terminated her based on excessive absenteeism. Branham’s son was ill and then she also became ill. She had an appointment with Dr. Singer and was told that she was able to return to work on November 14, which was the next day. However, Branham claimed that even though she had been released to return to work, she would need to be off in order to attend several doctor appointments throughout the months of November and December. The office manager, Buhler, explained that Branham needed to come in to sign a short term disability form. Branham did not report to work regular hours for quite some time but claimed that she completed some of her obligations off hours and from home. Her physician’s office faxed a medical certification form in to Buhler on November 17, 2006. The certification stated that Branham’s condition was better and she would be able to perform her regular duties commencing on November 14. It was also indicated on the form that Branham was not in need of intermittent leave. Branham worked with the doctor’s office to try to obtain another form from her regular physician but no changes were made. When she did not return to work by November 24, she was mailed a termination letter. On Tuesday, November 28, she learned that she had been terminated. That evening after 6 the employer received a fax which contained a new certification form which was signed by a nurse practitioner which worked at Branham’s doctor’s office. The new certification form stated that Branham had an illness which had begun on May 6, 206 and would prevent her from returning to work until January 1, 2007.
Branham Files Suit
Branham filed a suit against Gannet alleging that they had violated the FMLA by terminating in retaliation for attempting to seek FMLA leave. She also alleged that the company fired her on the 11th day and per FMLA an employer must allow 15 days for an employee to provide proper documentation. The court noted that Gannet had indeed terminated Branham on the 11th day but action only came after the negative certification received from her doctor’s office. She failed to prove that she had a serious illness or condition and that Gannet was not required to allow the remainder of the 15 day period once they received notification that Branham could return to work. However, when Branham asked for time off, Buhler, the company official made no mention of the need for Branham to provide certification according to the law. Since the company did not explain to Branham her responsibility of providing medical certification and that she had 15 days to produce it, the court granted summary in favor of Branham.