Righi v. SMC Corp. of Am. - 632 F.3d 404 (7th Cir. 2011)

Rule:

When the employee fails to give his employer proper notice, the employer is under no duty to provide Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 2601 et seq., leave. Stated differently, an employee's failure to comply with the notice requirements of the FMLA and its regulations forecloses an FMLA interference claim because the employee did not fulfill her obligations in order to be protected.

Facts:

Plaintiff was employed as a sales representative for defendant employer. During a seminar, plaintiff learned that his elderly mother was experiencing a medical emergency. He left the seminar, and e-mailed the defendant the following day. Plaintiff explained to his supervisor that he needed “the next couple days off” or “could apply for the family care act, but did not want to do it at this time.” Plaintiff’s supervisor tried to clarify his request for leave but plaintiff could not be contacted. When plaintiff finally returned to work nine days after leaving the seminar, he was fired for violating the defendant’s policy. Plaintiff sued defendant and his supervisor alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants. Plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Did plaintiff’s termination violate the Family and Medical Leave Act? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The judgment of the district court was affirmed. Plaintiff's e-mail to his employer, which mentioned that plaintiff had vacation time available and did not want to apply for family leave "at this time," allowed an inference that he was leaving at least some room to change his mind and use FMLA leave rather than vacation time to cover his absence. The e-mail, while too ambiguous to trigger the employer's affirmative duty to provide written FMLA materials and accompanying medical certification forms, was sufficient to give rise to the employer's duty to make further inquiry. However, because plaintiff failed to comply with the applicable regulatory and workplace requirements for family leave, his termination did not violate the FMLA. Plaintiff was absent without permission for a nine-day period that included six work days; his vague reference to needing "the next couple days" could not be considered adequate notice of a request for FMLA leave of that more substantial duration (that was especially so in light of the supervisor's persistent efforts to reach plaintiff to clarify his request, which were essentially ignored).