Plaintiff began working at the corporate Defendant on about November of 2005 as a driver and warehouse person on a full-time basis.
Following multiple appointments with an oral surgeon beginning on or about February of 2007, and a canceled surgery appointment for March of 2007 because Compton, Warehouse Manager told Plaintiff he was too busy to miss work then, on or about September 14, 2007, Plaintiff had an oral surgery. The surgery involved severe bone loss, bone grafting, and ridge augmentation. The surgeon prescribed that Plaintiff should be off work from on or about the date of the surgery until September 24, 2007. Plaintiff's oral surgeon wrote a note putting Plaintiff off work for this period of time, and gave it to Plaintiff. Defendant was fully informed of these conditions prior to Plaintiff going out of work for this surgery.
On or about September 21, 2007, Plaintiff went into the oral surgeon's office for a post surgery follow-up. He was given a note allowing him to return to work September 25, 2007, but the surgeon wrote "no heavy lifting what so ever only light duties for 4-6 weeks." This doctor's note was tendered to the Defendant warehouse. Compton told Plaintiff that due to the note he could not work, and there was no light duty work for Plaintiff.
As a warehouse man, Plaintiff's job involved heavy lifting. Due to the nature of the surgery, Plaintiff's surgeon believed that the exertion caused by heavy lifting and/or warehouse work could cause bleeding and/or stitches to open so Plaintiff should not do heavy lifting for 4-6 weeks.
After September 25, 2007, Plaintiff called Compton multiple times to see if he would offer Plaintiff light duty work. Compton did not return any of Plaintiff's calls.
On or about November 5, 2007, Plaintiff got warehouse, Vice-President of Defendant when he called into Defendant. Plaintiff told VP he was ready to go back, and VP said he needed a release to return to work. This is the first time Plaintiff had been told that.
On or about November 7, 2007, Plaintiff's doctor faxed a note to Defendant stating Plaintiff was cleared to come back to work. Plaintiff and the doctor's secretary also spoke to VP of warehouse operation from the office on the 7th.
On or about November 8, 2007, Plaintiff contacted Defendant to find out when he could come back. Plaintiff did not get a response.
Warehouse VP sent Plaintiff a letter dated November 8, 2007 stating that Plaintiff was deemed terminated immediately. However, the letter admits that the release for Plaintiff was received November 7, 2007.FMLA VIOLATION CASE RESULT: QUICK $112,492 SETTLEMENT IN 2014