Question: Kelly Hackworth took a leave of absence from her job at Progressive Insurance, to care...

Transcribed Image Text:

Question: Kelly Hackworth took a leave of absence from her job at Progressive Insurance, to care for her ailing mother. When she offered to return, Progressive refused to give her the same job or one like it. She sued, based on the Family Medical Leave Act, a federal statute that requires firms to give workers returning from family leave their original job or an equivalent one. However, the statute excludes from its coverage workers whose company employs "fewer than 50 people within 75 miles" of the worker's jobsite. Between Ms. Hackworth's job site in Norman, Oklahoma, and the company's Oklahoma City workplace (less than 75 miles away), Progressive employed 47 people. At its Lawton, Oklahoma facility, Progressive employed three more people - but Lawton was 75.6 miles (wouldn't you know it) away from Norman. Progressive argued that the job was not covered by the statute. Hackworth claimed that this distance should be considered "within 75 miles," thereby rendering her eligible for FMLA leave. Even if it were not, she urged, it would be absurd to disqualify her from important rights based on a disparity of six-tenths of a mile. Please rule. Strategy: The question asks you to interpret a statute. How do courts do that? There are three steps: the plain meaning rule; legislative history; and public policy. Apply those steps to these facts. Result: In this real case, the court ruled that the plain meaning of "within 75 miles" was 75 miles or less. Lawton was not 75 miles or less from Norman. The statute did not apply and Ms. Hackworth lost.15