Due date: November 12, 2013
MILLEA v. METRO NORTH RAILROAD COMPANY
Christopher Millea was a veteran of the First Gulf War and suffered from severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The PTSD triggered unpredictable panic attacks and, at times, Millea needed unforeseeable FMLA leave. In 2001 he started working for Metro-North and in 2005, he applied for special leave under the FMLA; which Metro–North approved and granted him 60 days of intermittent FMLA leave for 2006. In 2006 Christopher and his supervisor had a heated argument that resulted in Christopher having a panic attack; which caused him to leave work to go see his doctor. Due to the circumstances of what caused the attack, Millea asked a lead clerk to inform his supervisor that he was taking a FLMA day. The next day, Millea needed further FMLA leave and, once again, asked the lead clerk to report the FMLA leave to the supervisor. On both occasions the lead clerk did so (Mollica, 2013).
Did Millea violate the strict Metro-North policy by not directly notifying his supervisor of unforeseen FMLA leave? Did his supervisor try and retaliate by having his leave logged as non-FMLA leave because he was not directly notified?
Metro-North’s policy is that employees must give notice to their supervisor immediately, if unforeseen FMLA leave is needed.
Even though Christopher and his supervisor had a heated argument that ended in him having a panic attack, he still should have informed his supervisor directly that he had to take FMLA leave. It is understandable that he wanted to avoid possibly another conflict but when it comes to the rules and regulations of your job, as employees we have to learn to cover ourselves. Even though the clerk did inform the supervisor of Christopher FMLA leave, he was taking a risk by relaying it through the clerk ("Millea V. Metro North Railroad Company", 2013).
Christopher won this case in a split verdict before a...