Citing references

Plaintiffs rely heavily on our court’s earlier-referenced opinion in Módica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174 (5th Cir.2006), contending it controls the disposition of this appeal.

See, e.g., Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174, 184 (5th Cir.2006). 95 . Indiv. Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, 10-13 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 2617 (a)(1)). 96 . 29 U.S.C. § 2611 (4)(A). 97 . See, e.g., Bonilla v.

In doing this, Defendants essentially request that the Court respectfully disagree with the interpretation of this section of the FMLA presented by the Fifth Circuit in Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174, 185 (5th Cir.2006).

Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174, 183 (5th Cir. 2006). Whether the state is the real party in interest depends on the circumstances of the case. Id.

Lawrence County Adult Probation & Parole, 667 F.3d 408 (3d Cir.2012); Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174 (5th Cir.2006); Darby v. Bratch, 287 F.3d 673 (8th Cir.2002); Mitchell v. Chapman, 343 F.3d 811 (6th Cir.2003); Wascura v.

Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174, 183 (5th Cir. 2006). Nonetheless “a suit nominally against state employees in their individual capacities that demonstrably has the identical effect as a suit against the state” is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337, 347 (5th Cir.2004) (en banc))(alterations omitted).

465 F.3d 174, 186 (5th Cir.2006) (quoting Wascura v.

See Modica v. Taylor , 465 F.3d 174 , 184 (5th Cir. 2006). The Modica Court concluded that the FMLA's use of the word "and" between clauses § 2611(4)(A)(iii) and § 2611(4)(A)(iv) suggests that clauses (i)-(iv) are intended to be linked. Id. at 185 .

Doc. 160 at 5. 151 465 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 2006). 152 Id. at 183–87. 153 Id. at 184 .

Carver, 169 F.3d 683 , 687 (11th Cir.1999), with Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174, 184-86 (5th Cir.2006), Darby v. Bratch, 287 F.3d 673 , 680-81 (8th Cir.2002), and Luder v. Endicott, 253 F.3d 1020, 1022 (7th Cir.2001).

Additionally, Palomares challenges this distributive approach as being inconsistent with our holding in Modica v. Taylor, where we considered the FMLA’s definition of “employer.” 465 F.3d 174 , 183–88 (5th Cir. 2006). But that case is inapposite.

See Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174, 184-87 (5th Cir.2006); Darby v. Bratch, 287 F.3d 673 , 681 (8th Cir.2002). The Sixth and the Eleventh Circuits have reached the opposite conclusion. See Mitchell v. Chapman, 343 F.3d 811, 825-33 (6th Cir.2003); Wascura v.

See Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174 (5th Cir.2006); Darby v. Bratch, 287 F.3d 673 (8th Cir.2002).

See Modica v.

LeBlanc also urges us to disregard Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 2006), as being inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.

Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). Determining whether qualified immunity applies is a two-step process. Id.

Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 2006) (applying qualified immunity to an FMLA claim). First, the district court determines whether the plaintiff’s allegations establish a violation of a clearly established right. Id.

See, e.g., Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174, 180-81 (5th Cir.2006) (misuse of public funds and official malfeasance held to be matters of public concern); Wallace v.

Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole, 667 F.3d 408, 413-17 (3d Cir.2012), Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174, 183-87 (5th Cir. 2006), and Darby v.

Taylor , 465 F.3d 174 , 186-87 (5th Cir. 2006) ("We have previously held that a sheriff is an employer for purposes of the FLSA.

Modica v. Taylor , 465 F.3d 174 , 180 (5th Cir. 2006).

Compare Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174, 186 (5th Cir.2006) (holding that public employees may be held individually liable under FMLA) and Darby v. Bratch, 287 F.3d 673 , 681 (8th Cir.2002) (same) with Wascura v.

Oktibbeha County, Mississippi, 246 F.3d 458 (5th Cir.2001) and Modica v. Taylor, 465 F.3d 174 (5th Cir.2006), in support of Defendant White being held liable is misplaced.

See Modica v.