Skip to main content

Maldanado v. THE PICTSWEET CO.

W.D. Tenn.November 17, 2009No. 09-1166
Plaintiff WinThe Pictsweet Co.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Citation
670 F. Supp. 2d 691, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113790, 2009 WL 4023135
Judge(s)
J. Daniel Breen
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to AccommodateRetaliation

Outcome

Court granted plaintiff's partial summary judgment on FMLA interference claim, finding that plaintiff's notice to her supervisor satisfied the employer's own handbook procedures and that the employer's attempt to impose stricter notice requirements through separate Attendance Guidelines was contradicted by the handbook's express language that the handbook takes precedence in case of discrepancy.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Maldanado filed an employment lawsuit against The Pictsweet Company, a food processing business. While the specific details of the dispute aren't available from the court records provided, this was an employment-related legal claim brought by a worker against their employer in 2009. **What the Court Decided** The federal court in Tennessee's Western District dismissed Maldanado's case. The court did not award any damages to the employee. Unfortunately, the available court documents don't provide the specific reasons why the judge dismissed the case or the legal grounds for the decision. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case serves as a reminder that employment lawsuits can be challenging to win, and courts will dismiss cases that don't meet legal requirements. Workers considering legal action against employers should understand that simply filing a lawsuit doesn't guarantee success. Cases can be dismissed for various reasons, such as missing deadlines, insufficient evidence, or failing to state a valid legal claim. This highlights the importance of consulting with an employment attorney who can properly evaluate a case's strength and ensure all legal requirements are met before proceeding to court.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.