Hernandez v. Bridgestone Americas Tire, No. 15-2042 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against his employer, BATO, alleging that BATO violated his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601. The district court ruled in favor of BATO on plaintiff's FMLA discrimination, retaliation, and harassment claims, but ruled in favor of plaintiff on his FMLA interference claim. On appeal, BATO challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiff. Plaintiff cross-appealed regarding attorneys' fees and expenses. Based on BATO's overtime procedure, case law, and the statutory language, legislative history, and implementing regulations of the FMLA, the court concluded that plaintiff's overtime hours were mandatory. Therefore, hours missed for FMLA-qualifying reasons were correctly deducted from plaintiff's FMLA leave entitlement. By scheduling mandatory overtime hours that were not included in plaintiff's FMLA-leave allotment and yet were deducted from his FMLA entitlement when he missed an overtime shift, BATO denied plaintiff FMLA benefits to which he was entitled. In regard to plaintiff's cross-appeal, the court rejected plaintiff's claims that the district court erred when it reduced plaintiff's recoverable fees for lack of success on some of his claims; that the district court erred when it reduced his recoverable expenses by 20%; and that the district court erred when it excluded costs for computerized legal research. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Beam, Author, with Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Family Medical Leave Act. In action for interference with FMLA rights, the employer's overtime selection process made the overtime mandatory; thus, instead of holding, as the district court did, that the employer inappropriately deducted from plaintiff's annual allotment for scheduled overtime shifts plaintiff missed due to an FMLA-qualifying purpose, the court holds the employer interfered with plaintiff's rights under the FMLA by improperly calculating his FMLA-leave entitlement; by scheduling mandatory overtime hours that were not included in plaintiff's FMLA-leave allotment and yet were deducted from this FMLA entitlement when he missed an overtime shift, the employer denied plaintiff FMLA benefits to which he was entitled; plaintiff's challenge to the district court's reduction of his request for attorney's fees rejected.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 4, 2016.
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.