suit because she believed that the employer had violated the rules of Americans With Disability Act (ADA) as well as Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The outcome of the case was that the employer secured the verdict in his favor.
The first issue that the court had to decide about was whether an employee who is fired because of his duty of care for her child was experiencing discrimination at the hands of the employer and whether the employer violated the provisions of FMLA (Leagle.com 1). The second issue that was under scrutiny was whether an employer was in violation of ADA and whether the employer could be held responsible for indulging in discriminatory employment practices if the employer fires an employee on the basis of the employee being absent from his place of work because he/she had to look after a disabled child.
The rules that were used for the case were that an employee cannot be terminated from his/her duty because she was looking after a disabled child who she had a duty to care for (Leagle.com 1). The second rule that was used in the case was that the employer fired the employee because he/she had been absent from work. The third rule that was considered in the case was that the ADA does not require and employer to provide reasonable accommodating for the disabled child of an employee.
The analysis provided by the court was that the employee was working in a significant department which was the energy department of the healthcare facility and it was essential for her to attend work on regular basis. Furthermore, the employer in the case had clearly provided the employee with five warnings regarding her termination as a result of being absent. Furthermore, the employer and the employee had been in an agreement that the employee would be allowed to take time off the job to look after the child but there was no evidence of the employer officially providing the employee with the permission of being absent from the job for the amount of time she had