Hill v. Walker, No. 13-1381 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against her supervisor, individually and in her official capacity as an employee of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, alleging that the supervisor violated the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. Plaintiff also alleged claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and claims against the Department under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. The court concluded that plaintiff's FMLA claims failed because she was not an eligible employee under the FLMA and she had been employed for less than 12 months; plaintiff's FLSA claim failed because she did not plead adequately that the supervisor violated the statute; because plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of her position, with or without reasonable accommodation, she failed to create a genuine issue for trial on a claim of discrimination under the ADA; and there was no genuine issue for trial on plaintiff's claim of unlawful retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the FMLA and FLSA claims and the district court's grant of summary judgment on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims.
Court Description: Civil case - Employment Discrimination. Plaintiff's FMLA claims fail because she is not an eligible employee under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2611(2)(A)(i) because she had been employed for less than 12 months; plaintiff failed to properly plead a Fair Labor Standards Act claim against defendant Walker, and the court did not err in dismissing the claim; plaintiff failed to show she could perform the essential functions of her case worker position with or without a reasonable accommodation, and she failed to create a genuine issue for trial on a claim of discrimination under the ADA; nor did she create a genuine issue for trial on her ADA retaliation claim.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.