The baseball adage that “a tie always goes to the runner” has a legal equivalent in a court looking at a summary judgment record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party—which is almost always the former employee in employment litigation. This standard seems particularly apt in the recent decision of Munoz v. Nutrisystem, No. 13-4416, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104465 (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2014), where a former employee’s vague references to the reason for a leave were sufficient (at least in part) to support claims under both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Employee Violates Attendance Policy
Edith Munoz was hired as a retention representative by Nutrisystem Inc. in December 2010. During her hiring interview, she advised the HR representative that she suffered from sleep apnea and how her ongoing treatment for this condition might require her to attend “some appointments coming up.” Under Nutrisystem’s points-based attendance policy, “scheduled absences” would not receive an attendance “point” so long as the employee provided 48 hours’ notice and received management approval. A late arrival or early departure merited a “half-point” and an extended medical absence would receive just one point if accompanied by a doctor’s note.
