WHITE v. EBERLE & BCI SERVICES, LLC., 1:12-cv-02169

White, Jr. sues his former employer Eberle & BCI Services, LLC and supervisor Bart Perry for FMLA and NJFLA violations.
Court-friendly procedural posture: Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); parties arrange limited expedited discovery and potential summary judgment on hours worked; NJFLA claims dismissed with prejudice.
FMLA technical-violation claims center on failure to provide eligibility/designation notices; plaintiff argues notices should be timely and accrual runs from end of leave.
White worked at Fort Dix since 2008 as a kitchen aide; alleged undercounting of hours due to biometric scanner issues; records allegedly corroborate extra hours.
In April–May 2010, White requested leave to bond with newborn; leave approved April 8 to May 8, 2010; later suspended for a doctor’s note, then reinstated; he was terminated July 20, 2010 for alleged lateness (disputed).
Court finds Perry’s liability inadequately pled; claims against Perry dismissed without prejudice; remaining issues include notices and hours-worked eligibility, with potential expedited discovery and summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the FMLA notice claims are time-barred	White argues accrual runs at end of leave; timely if within 2-year period	Eberle argues accrual at leave start; 2-year limit expired	Denied without prejudice; limitations issue may be resolved on summary judgment
Whether Perry can be held personally liable under the FMLA	Complaint shows Perry had control over leave, suspension, termination	Allegations are too conclusory to show supervisor liability	Claims against Perry dismissed without prejudice; amendment may be possible
Whether amendment would be futile to plead Perry liability	Allegations imply Perry acted through the company and secretary	Bare assertions insufficient under pleading standards	Granted; Perry claims dismissed without prejudice
Whether plaintiff plausibly pled FMLA interference/retaliation claims	Alleged failure to provide notices and retaliation for exercising rights	Claims insufficiently pled at the 12(b)(6) stage	To be addressed on renewed motion or with limited discovery; not dismissed on the merits

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard; legal conclusions not accepted as true)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard; avoid bare recitals of the elements)
Hanna v. U.S. Veterans' Admin. Hosp., 514 F.2d 1092 (3d Cir. 1975) (limitations defense in 12(b)(6) context when bar apparent on face of complaint)
Bethel v. Jendoco Constr. Corp., 570 F.2d 1174 (3d Cir. 1978) (limitations issues limited to face of complaint)
Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (allow curative amendment where not futile)