Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT F
Case 2:03-cv-O1369—IVIHI\/I Document 112-7 Filed O9/26/2005 Page1 of 4

§§#é? IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ·
I I FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Debra Jilka, )
) No. CV—03—I369—PHX—MHM `
Plaintiff, )
I
I ORIGINAL
I
Drivetime Automotive Group aka I
Ugly Duckling Corporation, )
I
Defendants. )
I
I DEPOSITION OF DEBRA JILKA
Phoenix, Arizona
February ll, 2004
9:10 o'clock a.m.
Prepared by: U
SUSAN D. BINGHAM
Certified Court Reporter BARTELT&KENYON
Certificate #50364 C0urtRep0rters
101 Narth FirstAvenue
Prepared for: Suite2450
· Ms. ELIZABETH PETERSEN Ph0emlx,Arizmw 85003
v_ Attorney at Law Phone: (602) 254-4111
(Certified Copy) Fax: (602) 254-6567
w
Case 2:O3—cv-O1369—IVIHI\/I Document 112-7 Filed O9/26/2005 Page 2 of 4

02/11/O4 DEPOSITION OF DEBRA JILKA 90
_.p 1 h A. Correct.
3 E 2 Q. By March 19th you had been through five pay
3 periods?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Or is it four pay periods? I'll check my math
6 here —- five pay periods: Two January, two in February
7 and one in March; is that correct?
8 A. It sounds right.
9 Q. For 25 hours?
10 A. I'm not sure because I'd been there over a year,
11 I'm not sure what it was accumulating at, because I know
12 that if I had stayed through December 31st with the time
13 that I had taken off, that I still would have had five
i 14 Adays, because I was going to use those five days for
15 finals.
16 Q. I don't believe that alters the five hours per
17 pay period. l
18 A. 120 hours, the equivalent of approximately three
19 weeks' worth.
20 Q. Is that a yes?
21 A. That it would alter the hours?
22 Q. No, that it's still five hours per pay period
23 using your calculation?
24 A. Approximately five hours, correct.
25 Q. So you were clearly out of PTO with seven
BARTELT & KENYON (602) 254-4111
Case 2:03-cv-O1369—IVIHI\/I Document 112-7 Filed O9/26/2005 Page 3 of 4

02/ll/04 DEPOSITION OF DEBRA JILKA 91
A··· _ 1 requested days off and two sick days off as of March 19th
A 5 2 of 2003; correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. So the write-up is still appropriate under the?
5 paid time off plan. Your objection is that the fact that
6 even the days you were under FMLA were referenced at all
7 is the problem to you?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Is there anything else as it relates to your
10 Family Medical Leave Act claim?
11 A. Other than the way the attendance write-up was
12 written, and then the redrafting to include additional
!_ 13 information, no.
3 14 Q. Why do you believe that the revised write—up,
15 which is contained in Exhibit No. 1 that you received
16 from Mr. Hull, violates the Family Medical Leave Act?
17 A. Actually the redraft as it was written to be in
18 compliance with FMLA was determined not to.
19 Q. Mr. Hull concluded in his investigation and his
20 letter to you that is also contained within Exhibit l
21 that you were not terminated as a result of taking the
22 Family Medical Leave Act; correct?
23 A. His determination was based on the redraft.
24 Q. And his investigation?
25 A. But he is only -— and based on that, what he was
BARTELT & KENYON (602) 254-4111
Case 2:03-cv-O1369—IVIHI\/I Document 112-7 Filed O9/26/2005 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01369-MHM

Document 112-7

Filed 09/26/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01369-MHM

Document 112-7

Filed 09/26/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01369-MHM

Document 112-7

Filed 09/26/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01369-MHM

Document 112-7

Filed 09/26/2005

Page 4 of 4