Two Illinois employees were back in a federal appeals court with their charges that their former employer violated their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). They were in that court nearly 3 years ago with four other plaintiffs, all charging FMLA violations by the same employer. The other four were dismissed; read on to see how these two fared.

What happened. A number of years ago, six plaintiffs, all former employees of Motorola, went to federal district court, charging interference with and retaliation for exercising their rights under FMLA. The judge dismissed all their claims, and they appealed to the 7th Circuit, which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Early in 2008, appellate judges dismissed the other four but sent the claims of “Bennett” and “Lincoln” back to the district court for reconsideration. The district judge again dismissed their suits, and again they appealed to the 7th Circuit.

Bennett worked for Motorola from 1994 to 2004. He first took FMLA leave in January 2001 for gastroesophageal reflux disease, returning after 12 weeks. He took leave again later that month for surgery, returning in September, but took leave a third time in February 2002, from which he never returned. He charged both that the company didn’t put him in an equivalent position on his return and that he experienced discrimination and retaliation, alleging his supervisor’s mistreatment after both leaves had exacerbated his medical condition, rendering him unable to work after the third leave.

Lincoln’s charge was quite different: She claimed that tuition reimbursements to which she was entitled were withheld in retaliation for her use of FMLA leave.

What the court said. Motorola argued that Bennett’s original job had been split up and there was no equivalent position after his first return, and judges accepted that. Then they turned to the exacerbation claim, an issue they’d not encountered before. But judges for the 6th Circuit (KY, MI, OH, TN) had ruled in a similar case, and they ruled “that the FMLA does not address the cause of an employee’s injury.” So Bennett again lost his case.

As for Lincoln, judges found that Motorola had offered her twice the amount of money she said was owed, and she accepted. She had come to court to have that offer changed into a judgment so that she could apply for attorney’s fees. Judges refused to do so. Breneisen and Lineweaver v. Motorola, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, No. 10-1982 (9/2/11).

Point to remember: Judges wrote here that the type of illness that prompts an employee to seek leave under FMLA is irrelevant to the law.