JOANNE BYLSMA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLANT,
v.
DEWAYNE FREEMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, STEVE WALKLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIVISION DIRECTOR OF THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, NORMAN B. DAVIS, JR., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
PER CURIAM: Joanne Bylsma, an employee of the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of her employer on her claims under the First Amendment, the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601-2654 (FMLA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.
In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nevada Dep’t of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721, 123 S.Ct. 1972, 155 L.Ed.2d 953 (May 27, 2003), we reverse the district court’s holding that Congress did not validly abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims under the FMLA.
We find no reversible error as to the other issues raised by Bylsma on appeal, however, and therefore affirm the district court’s judgment on Bylsma’s claims. AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 373 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2004)…nder the plan because she was not completely unable to work). Courts, however, read Firestone broadly, applying its three levels of review to both plan interpretations and factual determinations. Shaw, 353 F. 3d at 1284-85; Torres v. Pittston Co., 346 F. 3d 1324 (11th Cir.2003); Paramore v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 129 F. 3d 1446, 1451 (11th Cir.1997) ("[W]e consistently have upheld application of the abuse of discretion standard of review to determinations involving both plan interpretations and factual find…
-
Shaw v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 353 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2003)…required to take in order to receive long-term disability benefits. Second, our Court has already declined to draw a distinction between law and fact in choosing the standard of review for denial of ERISA benefits. See e.g. Torres v. Pittston Co., 346 F. 3d 1324 (11th Cir.2003) (rejecting distinction between legal and factual determinations which would entitle ERISA fiduciary to deferential arbitrary and capricious standard of review even though fiduciary is under conflict of interest); Paramore v. Delta Ai…
-
Blankenship v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 644 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2011)…trary and capricious” and “abuse of discretion” are used interchangeably. See Jett, 890 F. 2d at 1139. . The deference is due both for the administrator’s plan interpretations and for his factual determinations. See, e.g., Torres v. Pittston Co., 346 F. 3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir.2003). . That the plan administrator in this case had discretion in reviewing claims under the Plan is undisputed: thus, all of the steps in the Williams test are potentially at issue. . We leave alone the district court's ruling i…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nev. Dep't of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (U.S. 2003)