Nevada Complex Litigation

Can Employee Work Elsewhere While on Medical Leave?

Last Month the California Supreme Court ruled on 2 issues related to the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) regarding the termination of hospital employee Antonina Lonicki.

Lonicki claimed she was suffering major depression and work related stress.  On advice of her physician she requested medical leave and stopped coming to work.  Lonicki’s request for medical leave was denied, but she was told she could take paid time off. She was also told to return to work by a certain date or face termination.

Lonicki sought the opinion of a psychiatrist who documented her depression and recommended another 30 day medical leave.  Her employer Sutter Health Central terminated her.  She sued her former employer for violating the CFRA by firing her and by failing to follow CFRA procedures when questioning the validity of her sick leave. 

Defendant (Sutter Health) moved for summary judgment.  Sutter’s argument was that plaintiff was not entitled to medical leave under the CFRA because, in the period for which she sought medical leave, she had a part-time job at a different hospital (Kaiser) where her tasks were substantially similar to those housekeeping tasks she was hired to perform at defendant’s hospital in Roseville.  Sutter further asserted that Lonicki’s part time job showed that she did not have a “serious health condition” as required for medical leave under CFRA and FMLA.

The Trial Court granted the motion for summary judgement and upheld the termination.  Lonicki appealed and the California Court of Appeal also upheld the termination and Summary Judgement.  Lonicki appealed to the California Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court refused to hold that working in a comparable job was "conclusive" evidence no serious health condition justified leave.  This Supreme Court Opinion paves the way for a trial in which Lonicki’s termination and rights under FMLA and CFRA will be determined.

Determining the Value of Property in Eminent Domain; Is Enough ever Enough?

Establishing the value of property is always a focal point of eminent domain actions.  The government entity “taking” the property wants to pay the lowest possible fair price which is in the best interest of the taxpayers, whose money is being spent/invested.  Again for the benefit of the taxpayers, the government entity wants to minimize legal costs throughout the eminent domain proceedings.

Of course, the property owner wants as much as possible for the property being “taken”.  Such is the case of Dr. Ira Trocki.

In 1998, Dr. Trocki purchased the historic Armstrong World Industries office building on Lancaster Square in Lancaster PA for $12 Million.

In 2004, Lancaster County acquired the property through Eminent Domain for use as a county office building, and paid Dr. Trocki $8.3 Million.

Trocki sued in Federal Court. 

U.S. District Court Judge James Knoll Gardner appointed a three member panel to determine the fair market value of the property.  Last month, that panel determined the value to have been $14.5 Million when the county took it over.  The judge ordered the County to pay Trocki an additional $6.2 Million (above the original $8.3 Million) plus $1.6 million in interest.

Lancaster County decided not to appeal.  Dr. Trocki has decided that he will.  Dr. Trocki believes that the property was worth $21 Million at the time of the eminent domain “taking”.

Chairman of the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners, Dennis Stuckey said Trocki's appeal was "disappointing" but that the county would defend "to the best of our ability, the taxpayers of Lancaster County."