Brockman v. Wyoming Department of Family Services

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that the legislative history of the FMLA does not identify any link between gender discrimination and discrimination against those with serious illness
• stating that “employer is not required to wait indefinitely for an employee to recover,” in case where employer “had good reason to believe at the point that it terminated [employee] that she might never return to work” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• recounting the FMLA’s purpose to “alleviate the economic burdens to both the employee and to his or her family of illness-related job-loss”
• construing effect of Hibbs and concluding immunity was not abrogated for self-care under FMLA
• “Because the Supreme Court’s analysis in Hibbs turned on the gender-based aspects of the FMLA’s [family-care provision], the self-care provision ... is not implicated by that decision.”
• “Because state sovereign immunity is a threshold jurisdictional issue, we must address it first when it is asserted by a defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).