Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (31356)	3/29/2005 10:44:36 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I found a winner! State Supreme Court to Rule on Scope of Family Leave Act By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer/Appellate Courts The California Supreme Court yesterday agreed to decide whether a person who holds two jobs but claims to be unable to work at one of them can take a leave under the California Family Rights Act while still working at the other job. Justices, at their weekly conference in San Francisco, voted 5-1 to hear Antonina Lonicki’s claim that Sutter Health Central in Sacramento violated CalFRA by denying her request for medical leave. Justice Marvin Baxter voted to deny review, and Justice Janice Rogers Brown was absent and did not participate. Sutter argued that Lonicki—a sterile processing technician—was not suffering from a “serious health condition,” as evidenced by the fact that she continuing to work at a Kaiser facility in the area, performing duties similar to those of her Sutter job. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Joe Gray agreed with Sutter, ruling that her ability to continue working for Kaiser established as a matter of law that she was not entitled to a medical leave from the Sutter job. The Third District Court of Appeal, with Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland and Justice George Nicholson in the majority, agreed. “CalFRA, like the [federal Family and Medical Leave Act], was intended to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of employees,” Scotland wrote. “...It was not intended to shift the balance of power to a capable but unwilling employee.” Dissenting Opinion Justice Fred Morrison dissented. He argued that it was legally possible for a person to be medically able to work at one job, but not two, and that the burden on summary judgment should have been placed on the defendant to show that Lonicki was able to work for Sutter. ======================================================== Do we actually pay people to blow it that badly?