Michelle Stringfield v. Cosentino's Food Stores, No. 18-1925 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Shepherd and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Family and Medical Leave Act. Defendant's judgment on plaintiff's claim it impermissibly interfered with her right to take FMLA leave affirmed without comment. [ December 17, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1925 ___________________________ Michelle M. Stringfield lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Cosentino's Food Stores lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: December 13, 2018 Filed: December 18, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Michelle M. Stringfield appeals the adverse judgment the district court1 entered, following a bench trial, in her action under the Family and Medical Leave 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Act (FMLA). Stringfield, a former employee of Cosentino’s Food Stores, alleged that Cosentino impermissibly interfered with her right to take leave under the FMLA. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. Upon careful review of the district court record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, this court finds no basis to reverse the district court’s judgment. See Smith v. AS Am., Inc., 829 F.3d 616, 621-22 (8th Cir. 2016) (following bench trial, legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, and findings of fact are reviewed for clear error). There was no error in the district court’s determination that the notice Stringfield gave Cosentino regarding the need to take FMLA leave was untimely, and she was thus not entitled to FMLA leave. See Hasenwinkel v. Mosaic, 809 F.3d 427, 432 (8th Cir. 2015) (to prevail on FMLA entitlement claim, individual must show (1) she was entitled to FMLA leave; (2) her employer was on notice of her need for FMLA leave; and (3) the employer denied her FMLA benefits). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-