What is the appropriate standard of review when a trial court grants a motion for summary judgment, dismissing an entire cause of action designated for jury trial, in which the pleadings are incomplete, when there is outstanding and incomplete discovery, and there is a record that is bare?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The district court in this case held that petitioner had no FMLA rights because her migraines were not a serious health condition, could not prove disability, discrimination or retaliation, finding summary judgment in favor of defendants appropriate. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order and reasons, while fully aware of the absence of evidence in the record (to include any depositions from both parties) required to explain pertinent questions posed by the court during oral argument. The court of appeals stated any violations of the FMLA must have prejudiced petitioner, noting nothing in the record indicates petitioner was prejudiced by the board's failure. Last, and again based upon a bare-bone, undeveloped record, the appeals court further their opinion, going on to suggest the board’s “goodwill,” while penning lines of scenarios in an attempt to explain | petitioners actions and/or inactions as a result of the limited evidence, or lack thereof. | The questions presented are: | 1. What is the appropriate standard of review when a trial court grants a motion for summary judgment, dismissing an entire cause of action designated for jury trial, in which the pleadings are incomplete, when there is outstanding and incomplete discovery, and there is a record that is bare? 2. Whether the employee notice requirements as written in the FMLA may be subjected to a more stringent review than those required within the provisions? 3. When prejudice is revealed in oral argument, should it be dismissed by the court of appeals and not acknowledged in the written decision? 4. When pertinent evidence is absent, not included in the record, providing little to no fact finding, is it proper to rule in favor of one party or the other, and if there is a ruling, is the ruling appropriate or gives the appearance of deference, bias or preference? | 5. Does the discretion afforded to employers to make employment decisions, specifically | decisions that violate state and federal laws/policies and collective bargaining | agreements, negate the enforcement of prohibited acts as clearly written in the (1) FMLA, and (2) acts of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability? 6. Under the FMLA, does employer continued compliance failures reduce, limit and/or diminish the employer requirements as written in the Act, and the enforcement of such requirements when compliance failures exist resulting in violation(s)? 7. Should actions taken against an employer resulting from failures or violations of employer requirements as written within the FMLA be determined actionable by one test prejudiced or not, as a result? 8. Should statements that are not fact or supported in any way be included in any | opinion or decision by any Court? | |