Trooper Fat'n Happy
Don D
9,834 Posts
Talk about a good retirement boost: A Maryland federal court (Knussman v. Maryland) recently awarded a former state trooper $40,000 in damages plus an additional $626,000 because the agency he worked for denied him FMLA. Some bonehead Personnel Officer at the state (whom I hope is not a Forum member) told him that he could only take two weeks off to care for his children while his wife suffered health problems after pregnancy and had difficulty caring for the baby. He was told "Only women could qualify as primary care givers because they have the ability to breast feed and that God decided only women can give birth." The Personnel Officer was held liable by the trial judge, although the Fourth circuit affirmed the manager's liability but vacated the award as excessive. They barred his eleventh amendment protection as allowing him to collect damages on his equal protection claim and said that damages resulting from emotional injury (which he claimed) is not compensable under FMLA (I didn't know that). The message to us all, as the court noted, is "Employers must never make a distinction between men and women who need time off for family commitments."
Comments
Thanks for the post - it was good reminder that we all have to be vigilant about what we say.
Sometimes a little levity helps to end a long day. Have a good one.
I think a lot of this attitude comes from the fact that most men don't ask for their rights under FMLA for bonding of newborns and I think it's because of this very same attitude of the "bonehead". They are made to feel less "manly" if they take this time leave.
The trend now is to not only sue the corporation for violation of these type rights, but also to go after supervisors personally. This is where the guy could sue for infliction of emotion distress.
Obviously this "personnel" officer needs a career change or at the very least, some training.