privileges of employment, deprives him or her of employment opportunities, or adversely affects his or her status as an employee.’” 765 F.3d 245, 257 (3d Budhun v. Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Cir. 2014) (quoting 120 F.3d 1286, 1300 (3d Cir.1997)). In Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, an FMLA case under 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) the Court of Appeals noted but did not Budhun – – decide the question whether less restrictive standard for employment action’ “the ‘adverse promulgated in the Title VII context by Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006)” can apply in such FMLA cases. 765 F.3d at 257. Budhun, … Notice Requirements For a discussion of notice requirements under the FMLA, see the commentary to Instruction 10.1.1. Serious Health Condition For a discussion of the term health condition” see Instruction and Comment “serious 10.2.1.
privileges of employment, deprives him or her of employment opportunities, or adversely affects his or her status as an employee.’” Budhun v. Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 765 F.3d 245, 257 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286, 1300 (3d Cir.1997)). In Budhun – an FMLA case under 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) – the Court of Appeals noted but did not decide the question whether “the less restrictive standard for ‘adverse employment action’ promulgated in the Title VII context by Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 … (2006)” can apply in such FMLA cases. Budhun, 765 F.3d at 257. Notice Requirements For a discussion of notice requirements under the FMLA, see the commentary to Instruction 10.1.1. Serious Health Condition For a discussion of the term “serious health condition” see Instruction and Comment 10.2.1.