Whitaker v. Bosch Braking Systems Division
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
180 F. Supp. 2d 922 (2001)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Tami Whitaker (plaintiff) was employed by Bosch Braking Systems Division (Bosch) (defendant) in a position that involved constant standing. While pregnant, Whitaker sought leave from working overtime because her doctor was concerned that spending too much time on her feet would put her at risk of hypertension and premature delivery. Whitaker gave Bosch a note from her doctor stating that Whitaker should not work more than eight hours per day and 40 hours per week. At Bosch’s request, Whitaker also submitted an application for family leave of absence and a certification of healthcare provider. The certification, signed by Whitaker’s physician, reiterated the eight-hours-per-day and 40-hours-per-week limitations and described Whitaker’s pregnancy as normal. Bosch denied Whitaker’s request for leave. Whitaker then refused to work overtime, and Bosch told her that she would have to take short-term disability leave if she did not get a doctor’s note authorizing her to work overtime. Whitaker took the short-term disability leave and sued Bosch under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for the difference between the amount she would have earned working 40 hours per week and the amount she received from short-term disability. Whitaker moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Quist, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.