38 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,978 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 52,355 times 95 Legal Analyses
Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc.
535 U.S. 81 (2002) Cited 902 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding employee must “ha[ve] been prejudiced by the violation” to obtain relief
Metzler v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka
464 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2006) Cited 502 times
Holding that FMLA retaliation claims are subject to the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis
Adams v. American Guarantee Liability Ins. Co.
233 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2000) Cited 583 times
Stating that "[h]earsay testimony that would be inadmissable at trial cannot be used to defeat a motion for summary judgment because a third party's description of a witness' supposed testimony is not suitable grist for the summary judgment mill"
Gunnell v. Utah Valley State Coll.
152 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 1998) Cited 522 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a retaliatory discharge claim must be predicated on intentional and knowing retaliation
Swackhammer v. Sprint
493 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) Cited 321 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiff's concession of lawful motive precludes inference of discriminatory motive
Cash v. Smith
231 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2000) Cited 391 times
Holding that an employee failed to show that her seizures, diabetes, migraines, and depression constituted a "disability"
Branson v. Price River Coal Co.
853 F.2d 768 (10th Cir. 1988) Cited 546 times
Holding mere conjecture insufficient to support an allegation of pretext
Campbell v. Gambro Healthcare Inc.
478 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2007) Cited 219 times
Holding that second element of interference claim requires showing that employee was prevented from taking full 12 weeks of FMLA guaranteed leave, denied reinstatement following leave, or denied initial permission to take leave
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,861 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 2601 - Findings and purposes
29 U.S.C. § 2601 Cited 7,661 times 39 Legal Analyses
Finding that there is inadequate job security for employees who have serious health conditions that prevent them from working for temporary periods
Section 2612 - Leave requirement
29 U.S.C. § 2612 Cited 4,955 times 39 Legal Analyses
Granting qualifying employees twelve weeks of FMLA leave in a 12-month period
Section 2611 - Definitions
29 U.S.C. § 2611 Cited 2,898 times 48 Legal Analyses
Defining a "serious health condition"-a prerequisite for FMLA eligibility, see 29 U.S.C. § 2612(D)-as one requiring either inpatient hospital care or "continuing treatment by a health care provider"
Section 2614 - Employment and benefits protection
29 U.S.C. § 2614 Cited 1,836 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that the substantive right to reinstatement "shall [not] be construed to entitle any restored employee to ... any right, benefit, or position of employment other than any right, benefit or position to which the employee would have been entitled had the employee not taken the leave."
Section 825.302 - Employee notice requirements for foreseeable FMLA leave
29 C.F.R. § 825.302 Cited 821 times 21 Legal Analyses
Discussing intermittent leave when foreseeable due to an enumerated scenario
Section 825.303 - Employee notice requirements for unforeseeable FMLA leave
29 C.F.R. § 825.303 Cited 807 times 14 Legal Analyses
Explaining notice should include "the anticipated duration of the absence, if known "
Section 825.305 - Certification, general rule
29 C.F.R. § 825.305 Cited 430 times 14 Legal Analyses
Requiring that when an "employer requests certification, the employer must also advise an employee of the anticipated consequences of an employee's failure to provide adequate certification"
Section 825.312 - Fitness-for-duty certification
29 C.F.R. § 825.312 Cited 122 times 7 Legal Analyses
Authorizing fitness-for-duty exams that are required as part of employer's "uniformly-applied policy or practice"
Section 825.313 - Failure to provide certification
29 C.F.R. § 825.313 Cited 49 times 4 Legal Analyses
Providing that an employee may be terminated for failing to comply with a uniformly applied fitness-for-duty certification requirement at the conclusion of FMLA leave

Boyd v. Humana Insurance Company

38 Cited authorities

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision

Holding employee must “ha[ve] been prejudiced by the violation” to obtain relief

Holding that FMLA retaliation claims are subject to the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis

Stating that "[h]earsay testimony that would be inadmissable at trial cannot be used to defeat a motion for summary judgment because a third party's description of a witness' supposed testimony is not suitable grist for the summary judgment mill"

Holding that a retaliatory discharge claim must be predicated on intentional and knowing retaliation

Holding plaintiff's concession of lawful motive precludes inference of discriminatory motive

Holding that an employee failed to show that her seizures, diabetes, migraines, and depression constituted a "disability"

Holding mere conjecture insufficient to support an allegation of pretext

Holding that second element of interference claim requires showing that employee was prevented from taking full 12 weeks of FMLA guaranteed leave, denied reinstatement following leave, or denied initial permission to take leave

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Finding that there is inadequate job security for employees who have serious health conditions that prevent them from working for temporary periods

Granting qualifying employees twelve weeks of FMLA leave in a 12-month period

Defining a "serious health condition"-a prerequisite for FMLA eligibility, see 29 U.S.C. § 2612(D)-as one requiring either inpatient hospital care or "continuing treatment by a health care provider"

Holding that the substantive right to reinstatement "shall [not] be construed to entitle any restored employee to ... any right, benefit, or position of employment other than any right, benefit or position to which the employee would have been entitled had the employee not taken the leave."

Discussing intermittent leave when foreseeable due to an enumerated scenario

Explaining notice should include "the anticipated duration of the absence, if known "

Requiring that when an "employer requests certification, the employer must also advise an employee of the anticipated consequences of an employee's failure to provide adequate certification"

Authorizing fitness-for-duty exams that are required as part of employer's "uniformly-applied policy or practice"

Providing that an employee may be terminated for failing to comply with a uniformly applied fitness-for-duty certification requirement at the conclusion of FMLA leave