Marchisheck

Marchisheck v. San Mateo County

Good Law
199 F.3d 1068·99 Daily Journal DAR 12631·1999 WL 1188978·24 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1320·77 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 46,209
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 16, 1999No. 98-16141California4,784 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Graber, J.

This appeal arises under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 , and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12945.1 to .2, 19702.3. Plaintiff Fe Castro Marchisheck contends that defendant San Mateo County violated those statutes when it terminated her employment after she took a one-month unauthorized leave from work to move her teenage son to the Philippines. The district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On de novo review, see Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998), we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

We view the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the nonmoving party. See id. Plaintiff was employed as a senior medical technologist in the San Mateo County General Hospital. She has a son, Shaun. At the time of the key events in this case, Shaun was 14 years old. Plaintiff was raising him alone.

Shaun had received counseling beginning in 1991. Following a 1991 arrest for shoplifting, Shaun was counseled by Dr. Rath at Project Focys. Dr. Rath concluded that Shaun, then 10, was mildly depressed and had poor peer relations. Shaun received counseling at Kaiser in 1994. He…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.