Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
535 U.S. 81, 122 S. Ct. 1155, 152 L. Ed. 2d 167 (2002)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Tracy Ragsdale (plaintiff) had worked for Wolverine World Wide, Inc. (Wolverine) (defendant) for about a year when she was diagnosed with cancer. Ragsdale was eligible for and took seven months of unpaid sick leave under Wolverine’s leave policy during which Wolverine held Ragsdale’s position open and maintained her health benefits, paying the premiums during the first six months of the absence. Ragsdale, having not yet been cleared by her doctor to return to work, requested another month of leave and was advised that she had exhausted her seven months under the company plan. Wolverine ultimately discharged Ragsdale when she did not return to work. Ragsdale sued Wolverine, arguing that Wolverine had not complied with a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regulation requiring an employer to specifically designate an employee’s medical leave as FMLA leave and providing that if the employer did not designate the leave as FMLA leave, the leave taken would not count against the employee’s FMLA entitlement. Ragsdale contended that she was entitled to an additional 12 weeks of FMLA leave and that her discharge therefore violated the FMLA. The district court granted summary judgment to Wolverine, and the court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted Ragsdale’s petition for certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)
Dissent (O’Connor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
