dela Cruz v. Brennan

Background

After a two-day bench trial, the court entered judgment for Louis DeJoy on Fernando N. dela Cruz’s claim that the United States Postal Service interfered with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Dela Cruz then moved for reconsideration. Although he filed the motion himself, the opinion states that he remained represented by counsel.

The only remaining claim concerned whether the Postal Service interfered with FMLA-protected leave from August 10 through August 14, 2016. The parties agreed that the initial question was whether dela Cruz gave the Postal Service enough notice that the leave might qualify for FMLA protection. The court found that dela Cruz called the Petaluma Post Office and said he was sick, but did not tell the clerk the nature of his illness. His doctor later gave him a work-status report stating that he was off work during the relevant period, but the report did not describe his medical problem, symptoms, or treatment.

Dela Cruz prepared forms requesting sick leave and bereavement leave and gave them, along with the work-status report and a letter documenting his sister’s death, to coworker Danilo Dolido for delivery to the post office. The court found Dolido’s testimony about delivering some of the documents not entirely reliable. It also found no evidence that the post office received the second set of documents and noted that two Postal Service employees testified they had not seen the documents before the litigation.

The court ultimately found that dela Cruz had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence—that is, that it was more likely than not—that the Postal Service received the first sick-leave form or the work-status report. Because the Postal Service was not shown to have received information that would trigger a duty to inquire about FMLA protection, the court found that dela Cruz could not prevail on his interference claim.

Motion for reconsideration

The court treated the motion as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment. The court explained that this remedy is used sparingly and generally requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. It also stated that a Rule 59(e) motion generally cannot be used to present arguments or evidence that could have been offered earlier.

Dela Cruz argued that the Postal Service must have received his documents because he was paid for the leave. The court had already considered that argument at trial and had found that an employee could receive sick-leave pay without submitting the relevant form. Dela Cruz did not explain why his additional evidence about a January 2016 leave incident could not have been presented at trial, so the court found that argument did not support reconsideration.

Dela Cruz also relied on a declaration stating that a custodian had been ordered to shred large volumes of documents at the Petaluma Post Office. The court found this theory speculative because there was no evidence that dela Cruz’s documents were among the shredded records, and he did not explain when he learned of the alleged shredding or why he could not have presented the information at trial.

Finally, dela Cruz argued that testimony about automatic deletion of employment records was misleading and referred to an earlier time-clock correction involving a coworker. The court found no explained connection between that time-clock correction and automatic deletion from the Postal Service’s records system.

Ruling

The court concluded that dela Cruz had not identified newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or clear error in the trial judgment. The court therefore denied the motion for reconsideration. The opinion’s signature does not clearly identify the judge, so the metadata identifies the judge as the court.