V-Com Partition Destroyer|
aka Partition Commander
Some of the Legal theories and arguments that apply to this case.
The question of FMLA coverage is a given for two reasons
The merits of FMLA violation are clear as there was a serious medical condition, as found by MSI's own IME, Dr. Craig Stirrat. Notice to the employer of the need for time off was given by Silverstein, and he waited more than a month to take time off. MSI's quibble about Dr. Gordon's letter was waived by its not giving him the required forms to fill out and neither contacting the doctor for clarification (29 CFR 825.307). An article discusses another case where an employer ignored the procedure outline in (29 CFR 825.307). Demanding that he wait more than 30 days was not permitted under FMLA. MSI's attorney admitted to the Department of Labor that they violated the FMLA, by not informing Silverstein of his rights and responsibilities under the act (29 CFR 825.301). See Hodgens v. General Dynamics Corporation, 144 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 1998) Bownes (for himself, Torruella and Stahl) That case makes it clear that his right to leave was absolute. It divides FMLA claims into two categories of claims: a prescriptive right to leave and a McDonnel-Douglass tested right against discrimination
Once the illegal nature of his firing is established under FMLA and/or stipulation that he was fired for being out from work while disabled, liability for punitive damages under 151B kicks in, as Dr. Stirrat's finding that the disability was job-related, together with his ability to do the job with accommodations, made him a c. 151B Qualified Handicapped Person under c. 152 § 75B (1). Small amounts of leave for medical treatment and schedule modifications has been recognized by both Massachusetts and Federal courts as a reasonable accommodation for a disability. The defendants recognized the disability and put limitations on Silverstein and actually countermanded orders from his treating physician.
Even if Silverstein is not found to be a Qualified Handicapped Person under c. 151B, Silverstein is entitled to damages! The retaliation is a separate wrong from the failure to accommodate and the discrimination. In Bain vs. City of Springfield, the court upheld the retaliation finding without a finding of discrimination.
To the extent TLC has merged MSI into it, which is pretty well indisputable, the measure of punitive damages would have to be by reference to TLC's assets. The same analysis would apply since TLC is merged into Mattel.
Since the acupuncture treatment at the hospital in China was paid for by the medical insurance company that hospital is a legal recognized health care provider as defined by the FMLA. The medical records clearly disable Silverstein for the purposes of the FMLA. Acupuncture has been recognized as a valid form of treatment by the National Institute for Health. The defendants lack of knowledge of Silverstein's need for surgery is not a valid defense. It is well established that a complete diagnosis is not needed to trigger the protections under MGL c.151B, ADA, and FMLA.
The requested time off is a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed Silverstein was able to do his job. Arguendo, even if Silverstein was unable to work as a software engineer due to his disability, he is qualified to fill the open technical support position. Silverstein, from developing the product, knew more about the product than the current technical support staff. Since having the treatment and the time off, Silverstein has returned to work as a software engineer. He has been working as a software engineer at a reduced amount of compensation than if MSI had followed the law. Due to the actions of the defendants, he will always have some amount of residual pain, but is able to work.
Mattel, Microsystems Software, The Learning Company, and the rest of the defendants must be held accountable for their actions. There are legal protections for employees that they refused to follow. Even after the defendants were told by the Department of Labor to rehire Silverstein, they refused. The law requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodations. The law provides for freedom from discrimination by sex, race, religion, etc. There are laws that prevent a manager from demanding sex from a subordinate to keep from being fired. This sets a minimum standard for decency and fairness in the workplace. One does not solely work at their employer's pleasure. Your boss cannot demand sex from you by threatening to fire you. It would be easier to not publicize this case than to fight, but what would happen to the next person that is injured on the job at Mattel, The Learning Company, or MSI? What if the CEO asks one of the women for five minutes of sex in the middle of the company meeting? The defendants must be held accountable for their actions.
Why ask for money? Current law does not allow the defendants to experience the pain that they caused. All that the law allows is that the defendants be made to pay money. If the award is large enough, then the defendants will think very hard before violating the next person. Hopefully other companies will see this and not do the same to their employees.
Shop Amazon's Outlet Deals in Computers, Office & Software Computers,
Another William Silverstein
site. Copyright © 2002-2013 William Silverstein. All rights
This site is copyrighted material and its use is subject to non-exclusive license. If you do not agree to the terms of this license, leave this site immediately, or you are bound by the terms of the license. Your use of this site signifies your agreement to be bound by the terms of this license. The use of this site is free for personal and non-commercial use - particularly for those wish to learn about and protect the rights of employees and those who oppose their abuse by employers and large corporations, but there are significant fees charged for certain other uses.
This page are the opinions of William Silverstein based on facts and information provided to him. This is not to be construed as legal advice. Mattel is the manufacturer of Barbie, Matchbox, and Hot Wheels. This site is neither approved nor endorsed by Mattel. All trademarks belong to their respective owners.