Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. Omega Moulding Company Ltd.

United States District Court, E.D. New York

September 9, 2014

HEATHER BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
OMEGA MOULDING COMPANY LTD., Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, District Judge.

On September 27, 2013, plaintiff Heather Brown ("plaintiff") commenced this action against defendant Omega Moulding Company Ltd. ("defendant") pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq. Defendant now moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim for relief. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background[1]

On or about March 5, 2012, plaintiff began working for defendant in "Order Entry." (Complaint ["Compl."], ¶ 13).

Plaintiff alleges that "[o]n or about February 6, 2013, [her] son*** was in stomach pain[, ] * * *contracted the flu and a strep infection[, ] [and] * * * was also constipated." (Compl., ¶ 17). As a result, plaintiff missed four (4) days of work, i.e., February 6, February 25, March 11 and March 18, 2013. (Id.) According to plaintiff, she furnished a doctor's note to defendant regarding those absences. (Compl., ¶ 18).

Plaintiff alleges that "[o]n or about March 15, [her] daughter *** contracted a serious health condition and suffered from a stomach flu." (Compl., ¶ 19). As a result, plaintiff was absent from work from March 15, 2013 through March 22, 2003. (Compl., ¶ 20). According to plaintiff, she furnished a doctor's note to defendant about those absences as well. (Compl., ¶ 21).

On March 22, 2013, defendant terminated plaintiff's employment. (Compl., ¶ 22; Kohler Aff., ¶ 5).

B. Procedural History

On September 27, 2013, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant pursuant to the FMLA. Plaintiff alleges that defendant (1) "never provided notice to [her] that her league was designated or covered by the FMLA[, ]" (Compl., ¶ 23); (2) "never permitted [her] to take leave under the FMLA[, ]" (Compl., ¶ 24); (3) "terminated [her employment], though she was entitled to 12 weeks of leave under the FMLA[, ]" (Compl., ¶ 25); and (4) "willfully, unlawfully, and intentionally, denied [her] leave under the FMLA and terminated her [employment], in violation of the FMLA[, ]" (Compl., ¶ 26). Plaintiff seeks an award of"backpay, lost earnings, lost life and health insurance, pre-judgment interest, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs * * *." (Compl. at 3).

Defendant now moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim for relief.

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

The standard of review on a motion made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is that a plaintiff plead sufficient facts "to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Com. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.