Recently, lawyers representing former employees have been pushing the envelope in thinking of new ways to make employers pay big bucks. Fortunately, courts aren’t accepting some novel arguments, like the one in the following case.
Recent case: Anthony claimed he was fired for wanting to take time off to bond with his newborn child and care for his wife. He took another job, where he hurt himself. He claims that had he never been fired he would not have been working at the new job and would not have been injured.
Therefore, he told the court, he was due damages in addition to any damages owed him for not being allowed time off following his child’s birth.
The court tossed out the claim, reasoning that there was no direct connection between Anthony’s injury and his earlier discharge. (Blackburn v. Sturgeon, No. 1:13-cv-00054, ED CA, 2014)
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- Make sure handbook spells out maternity leave terms
- Union members can't use 'Public policy' violation as basis for retaliation claim
- Good news: Liberal definition of retaliation applies only in certain retaliation cases
- How to successfully manage FMLA intermittent leave