The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment on an employee’s claim of retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In a memorandum opinion issued last month in the matter of Osei v. Coastal International Security, Inc. (No. 1:13-cv-01204), Judge Liam O’Grady ruled that the plaintiff, Naomi Osei, was an “eligible employee” under the FMLA, and that there were “sufficient facts in dispute to support” her claim that her employer, Coastal International Security, Inc. (“Coastal”), unlawfully took adverse action against her in violation of the Act’s anti-reprisal provisions. The case is now set to proceed to a trial by jury later this month.
The plaintiff worked as a security guard at the General Services Administration (GSA) warehouse in Springfield, Virginia, pursuant to a government contract held by Coastal. The company had taken over the GSA security contract from Osei’s previous employer, American Security, and had retained much of the same work force on the contract, including Osei and her supervisor. Altogether, Osei had been working at the Springfield facility since December 2009 when she was hired by Coastal on May 1, 2012.
According to the plaintiff, in July 2012 she began making periodic requests for leave to care for her young daughter, who suffered from apparent pulmonary issues requiring medication and occasional hospitalization. In January 2013 and March 2013, the plaintiff took leave on several occasions; Coastal treated most of these absences as “excused.” On April 4, 2013, Osei was written up for allegedly failing to report an early-morning fire alarm, and for failing to follow proper procedures for handling state and national flags during a storm. According to the employer, Osei became irate when presented with the PARs and began “aggressively yell[ing]” at her supervisor. She was subsequently suspended from work on April 7, 2013, ostensibly for violating the company’s workplace violence policy.
In her complaint, Osei alleged that the adverse action taken by Coastal was causally related to her decision to retain counsel in connection with her FMLA benefits, and that the company was retaliating against her for opposing its attempts to “deny or discourage her use of FMLA leave.” On September 17, 2014, Coastal moved for summary judgment, arguing that Osei was not an “eligible employee” under the FMLA when she was absent from work to care for her daughter, and therefore was not covered by the protections of that Act.
The FMLA defines “eligible employee” as an individual who has been employed by the employer for at least 12 months, and who has worked at least 1,250 hours for the employer during that time. Here, the defendant argued that because Osei did not become an employee of Coastal until May 1, 2012, she had not been employed by the company for 12 months when she made her FMLA requests, or when Coastal took adverse action against her, or when her attorney subsequently wrote a letter to Coastal on her behalf. In response, the plaintiff argued that Coastal was the “successor in interest” to her previous employers at the same job site where she’d worked for more than two years, meaning her tenure for the other contractors should be tacked onto her stint with Coastal.
Judge O’Grady agreed with this “successor in interest” analysis. Noting that Coastal had taken over the same GSA contract to which Osei had been assigned previously, and that her tasks, duties, equipment, location, and supervisory structure had remained virtually unchanged, the Court found that Osei’s employment had been “continuous” since December 2009. The Court also concluded that “equitable considerations” and the fundamental purpose of the FMLA weighed heavily in Osei’s favor, as failing to find successorship in this instance could undermine employees’ ability to address the medical needs of their families.
Fill out the form and we’ll respond as soon as possible.
Posted on Google
AnonymousTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
I was facing a charge of Reckless Driving for speeding on I66 at midnight. This is considered a Class 1 Misdemeanor in the state of Virginia. Having something like Reckless Driving on your record is on par with having a DUI. This charge also carries a chance for jail time (up to a year). I was incredibly scared because I had never faced such a charge. And looking into Virginia Law, my speed exceeded 90mph, which is quite serious. I retained Dave Albo to help me with this case. Since my record was clean, Dave had advised I do the following before my trial. * Take a DMV Driver's Improvement Course * Take a Behavior Modification Course * Do 100 hours of community service * Print my DMV Record one week before the trial On the day of my trial, Dave got my Reckless Driving charge REDUCED to a regular Speeding charge. This was the absolute best case scenario for me. No criminal record. No jail time. No suspension of license. I did receive 6 demerit points and had to pay a fine of $250 (plus court fees). But that's a slap on the wrist, compared to what I could have been facing. Thank you Dave Albo for helping me through this ordeal!Posted on Google
TomDave albo it's a fantastic lawyer. He has helped me twice now with great results both times with minor traffic tickets. I would recommend him to anybody including my family. He has great ethics and honesty which is what I look for in a lawyer .Posted on Google
kendall carpenterDave was my attorney recently for a car accident where I needed someone to represent me in court. After exchanging all necessary information he reassured me when the court date came that there wouldn’t be anything to worry about. On the day of court a couple problems arose and Dave was able to rectify them quickly, told me everything I need to say if needed and when it was all over he got my violation reduced significantly. I hope to never go to court again but if I do I will being calling Dave again.Posted on Google
Amanda StallardRetaining the services of Mr. Albo for traffic court was probably the best decision I made. He is very responsive to emails, knowledgeable, and punctual. He provided excellent advice that eased the panic of having to go to the court house and stand before a judge. I am very happy with the outcome of my visit to traffic court and highly recommend Dave Albo.Posted on Google
Mark WestMr Albo was very professional and I was pleased with the outcome.Posted on Google
MDavid was incredible to work with from clear communication and next steps. To showing up to traffic court early to walk over all steps, making case in court as experienced/intelligent/well spoken lawyer. Lastly, he even followed after case in writing to confirm the outcome outlining everything that happened in lamen terms (in my case the best outcome we could ask for). I’m so appreciative to David.Posted on Google
mitquinn88Absolutely top notch representation. Can't thank Dave enough for his knowledge and expertise.Posted on Google
G RThanks to Dave Albo for a fantastic job representing me and ensuring the best possible outcome for my case. I highly recommend him - you will be in good hands for sure. From start to finish he provided expert counsel and kept me well informed. He simply could not have done a better job.Posted on Google
Hope CarriganI am THRILLED with the outcome of my case, all thanks to Attorney Albo's superb expertise, excellent advice & sharp negotiating skills! I am extremely relieved and grateful; I highly recommend retaining his services. Well beyond worth it!!Posted on Google
Doug DamronDave did a great job representing me for my traffic court infraction! I wanted the best and his name came up as I searched for an attorney. Highly recommend him on all levels including a successful outcome to my case.
