ARNULFO GRADILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, RUSKIN MANUFACTURING, business entity unknown, Defendant-Appellee., 320 F.3d 951

Summary

The former employee also alleged negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court held that the former employee was not protected by the CFRA because he failed to provide proper medical certification of his wife's illness. The district court offered two alternative reasons for dismissing the retaliation claim. Finally, the district court dismissed the breach of contract and tort claims on the grounds that they were preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Addressing the CFRA claim, the reviewing court noted that in order to qualify for CFRA leave, petitioner had to prove that he (1) made a request, (2) for leave to care for a parent or spouse, (3) who had a serious health condition. The first two elements were at issue in the appeal. The court found that the former employee's claim failed because he had not presented evidence that he left work to "care for" his spouse within the scope of the CFRA. Addressing the claim that the former ...