In the case of Minard v. ITC DELTACOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case no. 04-30230, (2006) the Fifth Circuit court of appeals held that an employer who had indicated to an employee that she was covered by the FMLA, but then later fired the employee, upon her return to work, when the employer later determined that it [...]

Levoyer Wilson brought suit against his employer NHB Industries, Inc., for interfering with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act. To prove his claim at trial, Wilson had to prove that he suffered from a serious health condition within the meaning of the FMLA at the time of his absences from work, [...]

In a matter of first impression, employee within a public agency could be held individually liable under the FMLA. If a public employee acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer, he satisfies the definition of employer under the FMLA, and therefore, may be subject to liability in his individual capacity.
Modica [...]

Employee who suffered from intermittent depressive episodes which made it difficult for her to sleep, deal with people, and cope with work situations was fired from her job as a computer support specialist with county employer. During her 7 year employment period, employee received several negative performance evaluations concerning her interactions with others. [...]

Employee sought FMLA leave for surgery for the time period of November 29, 2001 through December 10, 2001. During the surgery, her doctor discovered that her condition was much more serious than originally diagnosed. On Dec. 4, employee sought an extension of her FMLA leave. Initially, the employer’s nurse agreed to the [...]

Although FMLA regulations state that employees cannot waive their rights under the Act, the Fifth Circuit ruled that an employee can release the right to sue for damages under the FMLA as part of a general release. - Faris v. Williams

Employee could not bring FMLA retaliation claim because her employer was not covered by the FMLA as it employed less than 50 employees - Humenny v. GENEX Corp. 6th Cir).

In Beffert v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 2005 WL 906362 (E.D. Pa.), the district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that a recently-hired employee who had announced her pregnancy and requested leave (that would take effect more than one year after her initial employment) could seek protection of the FMLA despite her [...]

In the case of Rutschke v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 96 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 886, 17 A.D. Cases 351, 31 NDLR P 31 (D. Minn. 2005), an employee refused a second request for clarification of his physician’s FMLA certification viewing the request as unnecessary red tape thrown up by the employer to frustrate the employee. However, [...]

In the case of Grosenick v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation (”Glaxo”), No. 05-3393 (CA 8 2006), several different dates were bandied about between employer and employee as to the start date of her FMLA leave. In the end, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that such confusion does not extend an employee’s FMLA leave from [...]