Tieguy;
Having recently had to undergo surgery, I have not been able to retrive messages from the court decisions service I subscribe to until today. Reading the 7th Circuit decision, I find it sad that Mr. Gilliam wasn't aware of the need to notify UPS 30 days in advance of his child's birth.I also find it disconcerting that UPS would find it necessary to fire an employee for wanting to be with his newborn child. As I have not had a chance to get the Northern District of Indiana District Court decision and read it, I do not know the facts presented to that court. However, on the surface, it appears that Mr. Gilliam's supervisor, Kinsey, was aware of Gilliam's expectant child, and even approved his initial time off. It would appear that Kinsey's first knowledge of the expectant birth would be important here.
All the more reason that our Locals need to inform the membership of their rights and obligations, and that there is a need to inform people of FMLA law.
Had Mr. Gilliam, informed Kinsey, or any other of his supervisors of the upcoming birth of his child a month before , he would have been covered by FMLA. Once informed of the possible need for leave to be with his newborn, UPS would have provided him with the necessary FMLA medical certification form,hopefully.I will be curious if Mr. Gilliam's lawyer persues this to the next level.
"The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off!"