Filed: Mar. 08, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 01-30731 BARBARA BAILEY PICHON Plaintiff - Appellant VERSUS MURPHY OIL USA, INC. Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans 00-CV-2355-C March 8, 2002 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM* The district court dismissed this action filed under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2611 et seq., on grounds that the plaintiff failed to produce s
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 01-30731 BARBARA BAILEY PICHON Plaintiff - Appellant VERSUS MURPHY OIL USA, INC. Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans 00-CV-2355-C March 8, 2002 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM* The district court dismissed this action filed under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2611 et seq., on grounds that the plaintiff failed to produce su..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 01-30731
BARBARA BAILEY PICHON
Plaintiff - Appellant
VERSUS
MURPHY OIL USA, INC.
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans
00-CV-2355-C
March 8, 2002
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM*
The district court dismissed this action filed under the
Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2611 et seq., on grounds that
the plaintiff failed to produce summary judgment evidence
establishing that her sinusitis prevented her from performing the
functions of her employment. After reviewing the summary judgment
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
record, we are satisfied that Pichon produced sufficient evidence
to defeat summary judgment on this issue.
Pichon’s summary judgment evidence included deposition
testimony by her physician, Dr. Hardges, along with absentee forms
signed by Dr. Hardges stating that Pichon was unable to work for
several days in September 1998 and March 1999 because of her
sinusitis. Dr. Hardges’s testimony was more equivocal than the
absentee forms, but the combination of the two was sufficient to
defeat summary judgment.
The district court did not rule on the Act’s second
requirement, that an employee’s incapacity be caused by a “serious
health condition,” and we do not reach this issue.
The judgment of the district court is therefore vacated and
the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
2