Banks v. the Armed Forces Bank

4 Citing cases

  1. Barnes v. Coxcom, LLC

    Case No. 16-CV-764-TCK-FHM (N.D. Okla. Feb. 7, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    To prove a claim of FMLA equitable estoppel under federal law, a party must establish: (1) that the employer knew all the facts, (2) that the employer intended that the employee would act on the employer's representations or conduct, (3) that the employee was ignorant of the true facts, and, (4) that the employee relied on the employer's conduct, to the employee's detriment. See Sutherland v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 446 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1211 (D. Kan. Feb. 14, 2006) (citing Rios v. Ziglar, 398 F.3d 1201, 1208 (10th Cir. 2005)) (internal citations omitted); Banks v. Armed Forces Bank, 313 F. Supp. 2d 1095, 1108 (D. Kan. 2004); aff'd 126 F. App'x 905 (10th Cir. 2005). Equitable estoppel is also a heavily fact-based inquiry.

  2. Fryman v. West Telemarketing, L.P.

    Case No. 06-CV-327-GKF-PJC (N.D. Okla. Jun. 4, 2007)   Cited 2 times

    Equitable estoppel requires detrimental reliance. Barnes v. The Armed Forces Bank, 313 F. Supp. 2d 1095, 1108 (D. Kan. 2004); aff'd 126 Fed. Appx. 905 (10th Cir. 2005) (employee could not establish critical element of detrimental reliance upon the alleged promise of intermittent FMLA leave). Fryman must show detrimental reliance when, on November 18, 2004, West granted her leave request and called it an "FMLA Intermittent Leave of Absence."

  3. Spiess v. Fricke

    386 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (D. Kan. 2005)   Cited 3 times

    Summary judgment for defendant is proper when plaintiff attempts to assert a claim or theory of recovery not included in the pretrial order. See Banks v. Armed Forces Bank, 313 F. Supp. 2d 1095, 1103 (D. Kan. 2004) (summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff advanced claim not in pretrial order).III. Qualified Immunity for Fricke and Etzel

  4. Argo v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.

    Case No. 03-4119-JAR (D. Kan. Feb. 4, 2005)   Cited 2 times

    While close temporal proximity is alone sufficient to establish a causal connection, it is not alone sufficient to show pretext.Pastran v. K-Mart Corp., 210 F.3d 1201, 1206 (10th Cir. 2000); Banks v. Armed Forces Bank, 313 F. Supp. 2d 1095, 1104-05 (D. Kan. 2004). Plaintiff argues, without support from the record, had Oliva not delayed his 2002 evaluation, he would have qualified for a "commendable" or "distinguished" rating before he filed his complaint.