Cruz Vs. Publix Super Markets
Cruz Vs. Publix Super Markets
The FMLA or Family Medical Leave Act is in place to provide protection for employees who need a medical leave of absence. Ty Hyderally who is experienced at litigating employment law cases explains that under the provision of the FMLA an employee can take up to 12 weeks off work annually. This non-paid leave is only approved when certain stipulations contained in the FMLA are met. The employee’s job position and status are protected when they must take a medical leave of absence which qualifies under this law. However, the employee has certain responsibilities to uphold in order to have the provided protection. When an employee does not provide the proper documentation, notice or information with an employer, they are not entitled to the same protections. In this case, the employee provided documentation but did not provide adequate or sufficient information about the situation and therefore was not covered by the FMLA.
Cruz v. Publix Super Markets Inc.
June Cruz was an employee at Publix Super Markets where she worked in the bakery department on a long term basis. In May, 2003 Ms. Cruz learned that her daughter was expected to have a child on November 1, 2003. Cruz requested 2 weeks of leave in order to travel out of state to be present for the birth of her second grandchild. She filled out the required paperwork for “time away from work” and was granted two weeks of unpaid leave from October 31 to November 16. Gary Southall, the Publix Store Manager approved the requested leave even though she had no vacation time left. She was granted leave based on the company’s policies regarding unpaid leave, not under the FMLA.
Omission of Information
Upon being granted the unpaid leave of absence, Cruz explained to her immediate supervisor that she may need to leave earlier than planned should her daughter go into labor early. Davis, her supervisor replied, “okay.” Cruz did not tell Davis that she may need to stay longer than expected; and she did not request any more time off. Two weeks before her daughter’s expected delivery date, her daughter want into labor but her husband could not provide the help she needed as he had a broken collarbone. Cruz never mentioned that her daughter was having any type of complications due to the pregnancy. Cruz told her supervisors that she needed to leave two weeks earlier than planned and her leave was approved, but she was specifically told it was still only a two week leave of absence. At this time, Cruz asked if the leave was qualified according to the FMLA, and Southall told her it was not. At the end of this meeting, Cruz stated that she understood she had been approved for a two week unpaid leave, and not a four week leave. She also noted that she suspected should she take four weeks off, she might be terminated.
Job Abandonment
Cruz then asked the personnel office for a FMLA leave application and returned it in to her supervisor along with a statement from her daughter’s doctor that stated concerning her need for medical assistance during this time. Cruz did not return to work after her two week leave but after the four week period she called to ask about her work schedule and was told she had been terminated due to job abandonment. She subsequently filed a complaint that the company had improperly denied her the FMLA leave in order to care for her daughter who had serious medical conditions. She stated that they failed to comply with her rights under FMLA.
Court’s Final Decision
Cruz was under obligation to inform her employers of her absence due to a potentially qualifying reason under the FMLA. When she did not inform the company that her daughter was having complications because of the pregnancy and was unable to care for herself the burden was no longer the company’s. Under these circumstances, Publix did not receive sufficient notice or adequate information in a timely fashion and were not obligated to fulfill Cruz’s request under the FMLA.
Cruz v. Publix Super Markets Inc.
June Cruz was an employee at Publix Super Markets where she worked in the bakery department on a long term basis. In May, 2003 Ms. Cruz learned that her daughter was expected to have a child on November 1, 2003. Cruz requested 2 weeks of leave in order to travel out of state to be present for the birth of her second grandchild. She filled out the required paperwork for “time away from work” and was granted two weeks of unpaid leave from October 31 to November 16. Gary Southall, the Publix Store Manager approved the requested leave even though she had no vacation time left. She was granted leave based on the company’s policies regarding unpaid leave, not under the FMLA.
Omission of Information
Upon being granted the unpaid leave of absence, Cruz explained to her immediate supervisor that she may need to leave earlier than planned should her daughter go into labor early. Davis, her supervisor replied, “okay.” Cruz did not tell Davis that she may need to stay longer than expected; and she did not request any more time off. Two weeks before her daughter’s expected delivery date, her daughter want into labor but her husband could not provide the help she needed as he had a broken collarbone. Cruz never mentioned that her daughter was having any type of complications due to the pregnancy. Cruz told her supervisors that she needed to leave two weeks earlier than planned and her leave was approved, but she was specifically told it was still only a two week leave of absence. At this time, Cruz asked if the leave was qualified according to the FMLA, and Southall told her it was not. At the end of this meeting, Cruz stated that she understood she had been approved for a two week unpaid leave, and not a four week leave. She also noted that she suspected should she take four weeks off, she might be terminated.
Job Abandonment
Cruz then asked the personnel office for a FMLA leave application and returned it in to her supervisor along with a statement from her daughter’s doctor that stated concerning her need for medical assistance during this time. Cruz did not return to work after her two week leave but after the four week period she called to ask about her work schedule and was told she had been terminated due to job abandonment. She subsequently filed a complaint that the company had improperly denied her the FMLA leave in order to care for her daughter who had serious medical conditions. She stated that they failed to comply with her rights under FMLA.
Court’s Final Decision
Cruz was under obligation to inform her employers of her absence due to a potentially qualifying reason under the FMLA. When she did not inform the company that her daughter was having complications because of the pregnancy and was unable to care for herself the burden was no longer the company’s. Under these circumstances, Publix did not receive sufficient notice or adequate information in a timely fashion and were not obligated to fulfill Cruz’s request under the FMLA.