Case Summary
On 07/12/2019 Kristina S Clothier Plaintiff filed an Other lawsuit against City of Deerfield Beach Defendant. This case was filed in Broward County Circuit Courts, Broward County Central Courthouse located in Broward, Florida. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Docket Entries
Docket Notice; OF AGREEMENT FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR RESPONDENT TO FILE ANSWER BRIEF; Party: Defendant City of Deerfield Beach
Read More Read Less
I. Introduction
Plaintiff, Mr. Joseph Langlois ("Langlois" or "Plaintiff") and Defendant, the City of Deerfield Beach (the "City" or "Fire Department") both seek summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims for Defendant's violation of the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA" or "Act") (Count I) and Defendant's violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights (Co...
See more on casetext.com
II. Factual Background
Plaintiff became a firefighter for the City in 1988 and consistently received good evaluations during his tenure with the fire department. See Mr. Langlois' Evaluation, Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, ("Pl. Ex. 3"). However, between October 22, 2001 and November 14, 2001, Gary Lother ("Chief Lother"), the Fire Chief, became aware of a developing situation between a Lt. Tom Ray ("Ray") and Langl…
See more on casetext.com
III. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). An issue is "material" if it is a legal element of the claim under applicable substantive law which might affect the outco…
See more on casetext.com
IV. Discussion
A. Langlois Qualifies for FMLA Protection Langlois is entitled to FMLA protection since he was placed on FMLA leave. FMLA allows an eligible employee to have a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period if, among other things, they suffer from a serious health condition that inhibits them from performing the functions of their position. 29 U.S.C. § 2612 (a) (1) (2005). In f…
See more on casetext.com
Conclusion
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I, III and IV is GRANTED, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I is DENIED as MOOT. 2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion on Count II is DENIED as MOOT. 3. This case is CLOSED. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
See more on casetext.com