›

Trooper Fat'n Happy

Don DDon D 9,834 Posts
in FMLA/ADA/Workers’ Comp Vote Up0Vote Down
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."
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Comments

  • 5 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • Peyton Irby MSPeyton Irby MS 139 Posts
    PMVote Up0Vote Down
    Amen to this post. Alos, a jury in Chickasaw County, MS recently awarded an ex-employee $8.5 million on a defamation claim becasue his employer publicized that his termination was based on thievery. NEVER publicize the reasons for termination except in a legal proceeding or to other managers/executives who are in a position that "need to know."
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Don DDon D 9,834 Posts
    PMVote Up0Vote Down
    And THAT ONE was a retired trooper too. I think they teach this stuff at the Law Enforcement Training Academy here in MS. It sorta compensates in the long run for the low pay. I'll Say!
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • SunnySunny 259 Posts
    PMVote Up0Vote Down
    And they say attitudes have changed. I guess the "old-fashioned" (I mean backward)ideas expressed by the Personnel Officer are still hanging on but I really thought that most people, especially hr people, knew better than to express them.

    Thanks for the post - it was good reminder that we all have to be vigilant about what we say.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ritaanzritaanz 2,665 Posts
    PMVote Up0Vote Down
    Don, let me see if I have this right. The trooper is claiming "emotional injury" because God decided only women can give birth? Just joking. x:D

    Sometimes a little levity helps to end a long day. Have a good one.


    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • RockieRockie 2,136 Posts
    PMVote Up0Vote Down
    Well Don - this guy certainly doesn't have to worry about the status of his 401(k) does he?

    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.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.