The case centers on Debra Haybarger, who had worked for 13 years, beginning in 1988, as an office manager for Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole before she began reporting to William Mancino, the agency's director, in 2001. Mancino reported to Michael Occhibone, the court administrator, who reported to Judge Dominick Motto, the President Judge of the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas.

Haybarger suffered from a number of ailments — diabetes, heart and kidney disease — and missed work repeatedly to deal with her conditions. Mancino repeatedly wrote in his annual performance evaluations that Haybarger needed to "improve her overall health and cut down on the days that she misses due to illness."

On March 23, 2004, Mancino formally disciplined Haybarger by placing her on a six-month probationary period. In his discipline letter, Mancino alledged that Haybarger's "conduct, work ethic, and behavior [were] non-conducive to the [probation department operation]," that she demonstrated a "lack of leadership," and showed "a lack of empathy to subordinate workers."

After conferring with both Occhibone and Judge Motto, both of whom agreed with Mancino, the three decided that "Mancino took all measures to help Ms. Haybarger retain employment and that unfortunately . . . termination [of her employment] was necessary."

After she was fired, Haybarger sued on several grounds. Eventually, the parties agreed on a settlement, but one issue remained: whether or not Mancini could be held personally responsible for an alleged violation of FMLA rules.

A district court said no. But the appeals court reversed.

The technical explanation of the court's ruling is this: In order to be held liable under the law, a manager must be acting as "employer" — "when he or she exercises 'supervisory authority over the complaining employee and was responsible in whole or part for the alleged violation' while acting in the employer's interest," the judge wrote.

Mancini fit that criteria, the court ruled. And now the case goes back to district court to decide whether the manager actually violated the FMLA.