A federal appeals court in Atlanta will consider during oral argument what threshold a former Walgreen Co. worker must reach to prove the pharmacy chain retaliated against her for attempting to take time off under federal law to care for a dependent.
Doris Lapham, a single mother of a disabled child, is trying to convince the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to revive her lawsuit against Walgreens alleging she was fired because she sought Family and Medical Leave Act time off. The court will hear argument Wednesday.
A federal district judge in Orlando, Fla., threw out Lapham’s suit after rejecting her argument that she needed to show her request for FMLA leave was a motivating factor that contributed to the decision to sack her. Instead, the judge applied the more stringent “but-for” causation standard—meaning that the company wouldn’t have terminated her but for her leave request—and found Lapham came up short.
The case gives the Eleventh Circuit the opportunity to clarify the proper causation standard needed to prove FMLA retaliation. A decision that adopts a but-for threshold would create a circuit split that only the US Supreme Court could resolve.
The high court has handed down four rulings since 2009 that set causation standards under various federal anti-bias laws, with the justices making but-for causation the default standard...
Darlene Musgrove inflated clients’ refunds with false deductions, costing the federal government about $127,166, prosecutors said. What's on your ballot: Prop 141 prohibit taxes or fees on miles tr...