Irac Brief

Learning Team Reflection: Week Four IRAC Brief

LAW531: Business Law

August 12, 2013

Title: Diane Sanders v. City of Newport, and Oregon Municipal Corporation, 

Facts: Sanders generated several federal and state claims against the city of Newport blocking from her discharge from employment. After a jury trial, a defense verdict returned on all claims tried to the jury.

According to Sanders V. City Of Newport, 595 F. Supp. 2d 1164 - Dist. Court, D. Oregon 2009 (n.d), “the plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant refused, without reasonable cause, to reinstate her after she took family medical leave pursuant to the Oregon Family Leave Act” (Opinion and Order).

According to "United States Courts For The Ninth Circuit" (n.d) “found for defendant on the retaliation claim stating that there was no evidence presented at trial from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that plaintiff was discharged because she complained or caused a complaint to be filed about workplace safety” (Background). They both were told to submit further briefing on Sanders OFLA claim.

Issues: Did the city of Newport’s failure to reinstate Sanders a violation of the FMLA and OFLA under the circumstances?

The plaintiff argued that under FMLA and OFLA the employer is required to reinstate her to full employment once the doctor's conditions are met ("Sanders vs. City of Newport, 2009).  The original case ruled in favor of the city of Newport and placed the burden of proving the violation on the plaintiff rather than on the defendant to substantiate their reasons for dismissal, which is required under FMLA (Baum, 2011). There was no cause for dismissing Sanders and the employer had no right to interfere with the reinstatement under the law of FMLA (Baum, 2011).

Rule:  In the original trial, for Sanders v. City of Newport, the court ruled in favor of the city.  Sanders appealed due to erroneous information provided to the jury in regards to FMLA...