The case Scobey v Nucor Steel-Arkansas have presented various issues relating to the absenteeism of employees and the correct application of notice of leaves. This includes the claims of discriminatory retaliation and interference under the FMLA as filed by the plaintiff. In the case, Scobey wants to attend the funeral of his brother in law and makes this the reason for his leave. Signs of depression were also evident. However, the company Nucor cites that he did not file a proper notice and that he was just making excuses for his alcoholism. When Scobey returned, he was demoted and was forced to comply to the plant manager. The issue is related to the improper sanctions applied by the firm according to the plaintiff’s perspective. However, the company believes that this is the proper repercussion for their employee’s actions. Aside from the issue mentioned above, Scobey also believes that the company violated his rights to file a leave.
Upon careful analysis of the issues mentioned and the circumstances, the court decided to dismiss the claims of the plaintiff. This is in relation to the factors involved. Claim of discriminatory retaliation was dismissed on the ground that the dispute relating to the demotion of Scobey were not included and secured in the FMLA. The other complain was also rejected as a valid reason. The claim of interference was dismissed on the ground that proper notice was not properly secured and given by Scobey.
The court decided that adequate notice was not given. This is due to the fact that Scobey’s depression generally described without further details. This condition usually has varying types. The employee failed to give enough reasons for the depression. Scobey also did not give formal documents to express his interest to file a leave to the company. Instead, he went missing from work. On the other hand, the dissenting judge believes that Scobey gave an adequate notice. Severe depression was supposed to be implied because of two cases of nervous breakdowns as stated by the plaintiff. The majority has a better argument because evidence can not be based solely on hearsay or statements. This is especially true in this case wherein the words came from the plaintiff himself. Documents should be provided to present proofs that would serve as evidence.
From the case, it appeared that Scobey had a serious health condition, which is depression. However, this is only based on the statement of the plaintiff as shown in his conversations. Further documents should have been provided. From the point of view of another party, such as an essay writing service, it appears that Scobey did not really have a serious health condition. This could be implied from the lack of documentary evidence and the sole basis, which is the plaintiff’s statement.
The current regulations emphasize 4 requirements in respect to unforeseen FMLA leave. Timing of notice is important. The employee should let the employer know about his/her leave on the usual time allotted in their agreement. According to facts that are provided The notice should contain adequate information to reasonably determine whether the leave request is done according to the FMLA requirement. Compliance to employer policies regarding documentation and other procedures related to this action. In unusual circumstances, the absence should also be explained well.
According to The employer should have handled the situation better by explaining the planned sanctions to Scobey before applying it. In the case, the demotion was done abruptly. Since this is not really included in the rules of the firm, this created a confusion. In order to abide by the company’s policies, they should have just have terminated Scobey. This would be clearer than the abrupt decision to demote their employee.