In 1998, plaintiff Wilfredo Golez, a custodian in his 40s, was hired by the United States Postal Service. During the course of his employment, Golez missed time from work to take care of his mother, who suffered from long-term respiratory and heart conditions. On July 24, 2008, Golez was terminated from employment due to his excessive absences. Golez sued the postal service, and Postmaster Generals Patrick R. Donahoe and John Potter. He alleged that the defendants wrongfully terminated him in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act. Potter was ultimately let out of the case, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial against the remaining defendants. Golez, appearing pro se, contended that under the guidelines of the Family Medical Leave Act, he was allowed to miss work in order to care for his mother. He claimed that the law, under the Family Medical Leave Act, requires employers to give their employees unpaid leave to take care of sick family members, if the employees meet certain requirements, under certain circumstances. Golez claimed that he met those requirements under those circumstances, so his termination violated the Family Medical Leave Act. Defense counsel contended that Golez was frequently tardy and missed work on several occasions, so much so that he was previously suspended for his absences. Thus, counsel argued that Golez’s termination was the ultimate progression of his discipline, as he did not provide notice for his absences or tardiness, and would leave during the middle of the work day, all of which was not protected by the Family Medical Leave Act., Golez sought recovery of economic and non-economic damages in excess of $150,000. He also sought to be reinstated to his former job as a custodian with United States Postal Service. Defense counsel contended that Golez was terminated for legitimate business reasons, so he was owed zero damages.