"On a side note Perkins you might want to watch out because Van Brock REALLY would like to be Chief of the Town of Torture."

I wouldn't know if that is true or not, Van Brock is too much of a gentleman to comment on that. I'm not! Van Brock was screwed and everyone in Tyrone knows it!

The old bunch jumped over him and others with more experience for only one reason!

They knew Van Brock was ethical and honest and could not/would not, be used. He lives by the same thing a lot of good people do, I doesn't matter what others think of you if you know in your heart you have done the right thing. I don't think he would ever be any one's flunky because at the end of the day he had to face his on conscious..that is what makes some people respected, and others...flunkies!

Are you saying that Chief Perkins is not honest or ethical? I'm sure there are reasons as to why Perkins is Chief and Brock is not. Perkins is a GREAT Chief!

And it was mentioned that there were complications with the pregnancy, they could have been before, or after the birth. But fire the officer for having a baby, isn't that a bit illegal? I saw in a post a last year that the officer (had to be the same officer) had nothing but good/excellent reviews until the lawsuit, from Tyrone and Fayette county.

Actually, according to the FMLA provisions, all public agencies are covered by FMLA regardless of the number of employees; they are not subject to the coverage threshold of 50 employees carried on the payroll each day for 20 or more weeks in a year.

But you are correct about one thing, it's a shame that there are some individuals who obviously blog any and every thing about others regardless of whether or not it's true. Kinda reminds me of the ol' Hitler strategy of "repeat a lie enough and people will think it's the truth".

The employer must reinstate the employee when that employee returns from leave, so yeah, it IS illegal. Here's the actual law to clear things up for you:

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/

Actually, there are situations where the employer is not required to reinstate the person back in their former position. It even says so in the website you reference, See below:

(b) EXEMPTION CONCERNING CERTAIN HIGHLY COMPENSATED EMPLOYEES.--
(1) DENIAL OF RESTORATION.--An employer may deny restoration under subsection (a) to any eligible employee described in paragraph (2) if--
(A) such denial is necessary to prevent substantial and grievous economic injury to the operations of the employer;
(B) the employer notifies the employee of the intent of the employer to deny restoration on such basis at the time the employer determines that such injury would occur; and
(C) in any case in which the leave has commenced, the employee elects not to return to employment after receiving such notice.

In this case, it's hard to tell with regards to the dates, but if Ms. McElwaney was granted 12 weeks of Family Medical Leave at the beginning of 2006, used all 12 weeks but did not report back in a timely manner or follow established procedures with regard to her returning from Family Medical Leave, then the employer had no legal obligation to hire her back.

That's why I'm wondering if that's what happened here since her file was notated as "voluntary resignation" and she reported back in August.

But, hey who knows...guess it'll all come out at the trial.

...and police officer is not considered a "highly compensated" or "key position."

As far as the rest of the lawsuit, you're right that all the details will come out in court if it continues forward. With some of the BS Tyrone has done over the last several years, I wouldn't be shocked, but so far we've only heard one side of the story.

That wrong doers keep facts secret, so no evidence is available? Do audits, interrogatories, depositions and eeoc investigations bring real facts to light?