The Family and Medical Leave Act gives eligible employees up to 12 weeks of protected leave for serious health conditions, family caregiving, or the birth of a child. When employers deny that leave or punish employees for taking it, they are breaking federal law.
The FMLA applies to private employers with 50 or more employees within 75 miles of a worksite, and to all public agencies and schools. To be eligible, an employee generally must have worked for the employer for at least 12 months and at least 1,250 hours during those 12 months. Eligible employees can take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per 12-month period for qualifying reasons.
The FMLA recognizes two distinct claims under 29 U.S.C. Section 2615. Interference claims under subsection (a)(1) arise when an employer denies an employee's substantive FMLA rights (Milman v. Fieger & Fieger, P.C., 58 F.4th 860 (6th Cir. 2023)). To establish a prima facie interference claim, the plaintiff must show: (1) eligibility as an employee, (2) the defendant is a covered employer, (3) entitlement to leave under the FMLA, (4) notice of intent to take leave, and (5) denial of FMLA benefits to which the employee was entitled (Chapman v. Brentlinger Enterprises, 124 F.4th 382 (6th Cir. 2024)). Interference claims do not require proof of discriminatory or retaliatory intent (Harris v. Children's Home of Cincinnati, 815 F.Supp.3d 682 (S.D. Ohio 2025)); the employer's intent is irrelevant because interference occurs whenever the employee does not receive rights due under the Act (Rexhaj v. Sweeping Corporation of America, 728 F.Supp.3d 687 (E.D. Mich. 2024)).
Retaliation claims under Section 2615(a)(2) impose liability on employers that act against employees specifically because those employees invoked their FMLA rights (Robinson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC, 821 Fed.Appx. 522 (6th Cir. 2020)). The Sixth Circuit applies the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to FMLA retaliation claims based on circumstantial evidence (Render v. FCA US, LLC, 53 F.4th 905 (6th Cir. 2022)). The plaintiff must show: (1) the employee availed themselves of a protected right, (2) suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection exists between the two (Perry v. Sephora USA, Inc., 798 F.Supp.3d 824 (M.D. Tenn. 2025)). Causation often turns on temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action (Lilly v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 556 F.Supp.3d 802 (N.D. Ohio 2021)).
For foreseeable leave, an employee must provide at least 30 days advance notice or notice as soon as practicable (29 C.F.R. Section 825.302). For unforeseeable leave, notice must be given as soon as practicable under the circumstances (29 C.F.R. Section 825.303). The Sixth Circuit has been clear that an employee need not expressly mention the FMLA or use magic words when seeking leave for the first time (Render v. FCA US). The critical test for substantively sufficient notice is whether the information conveyed was reasonably adequate to apprise the employer of the employee's request to take leave for a serious health condition (Hrdlicka v. General Motors, LLC, 63 F.4th 555 (6th Cir. 2023)). Once an employer is put on notice, the employer bears the obligation to collect any additional information necessary to make the leave comply with the FMLA (Milman v. Fieger & Fieger). Employers in turn must provide their own written notices detailing employee expectations, obligations, and consequences (29 C.F.R. Section 825.300); failure to do so may itself constitute interference.
Employers may require medical certification, but the request must be made within five business days of the leave request or commencement (29 C.F.R. Section 825.305). A certification is incomplete if applicable entries are not completed, and insufficient if information is vague, ambiguous, or non-responsive. Critically, employers must advise employees in writing of any incomplete certification and state what additional information is necessary, providing seven calendar days to cure deficiencies. Employers may not deny leave outright without first allowing the employee to cure. Employers may request recertification every 30 days, or more frequently if circumstances have significantly changed (29 C.F.R. Section 825.308). The Sixth Circuit held in Jackson v. United States Postal Service, 149 F.4th 656 (6th Cir. 2025), that medical certifications stating specific numbers of days for intermittent unforeseeable leave do not operate as hard caps, given the unpredictable nature of certain chronic conditions.
The Sixth Circuit recognizes the "honest belief" defense in FMLA retaliation claims. Under Jackson v. United States Postal Service, an employer's proffered reason for adverse action is considered honestly held where the employer can establish it reasonably relied on particularized facts before it at the time of the decision. Once the employer makes that showing, the employee must show that the belief was not honestly held; ultimate falsity of the employer's belief cannot create pretext as a matter of law. The defense is significant but not absolute: in Render v. FCA US, the Sixth Circuit rejected the honest belief defense where the employer admitted terminating the employee despite knowing he qualified for FMLA leave and was attempting to use approved leave to cover the absences at issue.
The FMLA's restoration requirement under 29 U.S.C. Section 2614(a) entitles employees to return to the same position or an equivalent position with equivalent pay, benefits, and working conditions. An equivalent position has been defined as one that is virtually identical to the former position (Stanislaw v. City of Warren, Ohio (N.D. Ohio 2022)). The right is not absolute: employers may deny restoration if the employee would have been terminated regardless of the leave, but the employer bears the burden of proving the would-have-terminated defense (Snyder v. U.S. Bank National Association (S.D. Ohio 2022); Bobnar v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, 758 F.Supp.3d 690 (N.D. Ohio 2024)).
For intermittent leave under 29 U.S.C. Section 2612(b), employers must account for the leave using an increment no greater than the shortest period the employer uses to account for other forms of leave (29 C.F.R. Section 825.205). Attendance policies that fail to accommodate FMLA-protected absences interfere with the Act; in Schobert v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (S.D. Ohio 2024), the court found that denying employees the opportunity to earn attendance credits while on FMLA leave interfered with restoration rights.
When an employer is acquired or undergoes corporate restructuring after the protected activity, the FMLA's successor-liability framework can extend obligations to the acquirer. The Sixth Circuit applies a nine-factor balancing test considering notice of charges, the predecessor's ability to provide relief, continuity of operations, workforce, supervisory personnel, working conditions, and equipment (Carter v. Paschall Truck Lines, Inc., 364 F.Supp.3d 732 (W.D. Ky. 2019)). Under Miller v. RK Grocers, LLC, 170 F.Supp.3d 973 (E.D. Mich. 2016), employees' entitlements are the same as if the employment by the predecessor and successor were continuous employment by a single employer. The successor must grant leave, continue ongoing leave, maintain group health benefits, and restore the employee at the conclusion of leave.
FMLA cases typically come down to documentation: the medical certification, the leave request, the employer's response, and the timing of any adverse action. Employers are required to give specific notices on tight deadlines, and failures to provide those notices can be evidence of interference. Timing also matters: an adverse action shortly after leave is requested or taken often supports a retaliation inference, and the Sixth Circuit treats temporal proximity as an important factor in establishing causation.
Two specific patterns recur in the firm's FMLA caseload. The first is the retaliation case framed as a performance issue, where the employer claims to have honestly believed the employee had performance problems and invokes the honest belief defense at summary judgment. The plaintiff's response typically focuses on evidence that the employer's stated belief was not honestly held: shifting explanations, prior positive evaluations, and treatment of similarly situated employees. The second is the intermittent leave case, where the employer attempts to discipline the employee for absences covered by an existing FMLA certification. For chronic conditions with unpredictable flareups, the Sixth Circuit's recent decision in Jackson v. United States Postal Service, 149 F.4th 656 (6th Cir. 2025), is significant: it confirms that medical certifications providing estimates of monthly leave days do not function as hard caps that the employer can use to deny additional protected leave.
FMLA damages under 29 U.S.C. Section 2617 include wages, salary, employment benefits denied or lost, interest on the foregoing, and liquidated damages equal to the sum of compensatory damages and interest unless the employer proves it acted in good faith. Liquidated damages are presumed: the employer bears the burden of establishing that it subjectively operated in good faith to ascertain the dictates of the FMLA and to act in conformance with the Act (Clements v. Prudential Protective Services, LLC, 659 Fed.Appx. 820 (6th Cir. 2016)). Equitable relief includes reinstatement, front pay, and attorney's fees.
One important damages limit: emotional distress damages are not recoverable under the FMLA, because the statute specifies the types of damages an employer may be liable for, and limits recovery to actual monetary losses such as salary and benefits and certain liquidated damages (Kastor v. Cash Express of Tennessee, LLC, 77 F.Supp.3d 605 (W.D. Ky. 2015)). This contrasts with parallel claims under Ohio R.C. 4112, which permit emotional distress damages and (subject to caps and predicate requirements) punitive damages and attorney's fees. FMLA cases are routinely paired with R.C. 4112 disability discrimination, ADA, and pregnancy discrimination claims to capture the broader range of damages each statute provides.
Private employers are covered if they have 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius of your worksite. All public agencies and public and private elementary and secondary schools are covered regardless of size. If you are unsure about coverage, an attorney can analyze whether your employer meets the threshold and whether you are individually eligible.
Interference happens when an employer prevents you from taking leave you are entitled to, fails to provide required notices, miscounts your leave, refuses to restore you to your job, or otherwise blocks your FMLA rights. You do not have to prove the employer intended to break the law to recover for interference, only that you were entitled to leave and were prevented from getting its full benefit.
Not for reasons related to your leave. Employers cannot terminate, demote, or otherwise penalize you for taking FMLA leave. They can terminate for reasons unrelated to your leave (such as a documented performance issue or a layoff that would have happened regardless), but the timing always invites scrutiny. Termination during or shortly after leave is the classic retaliation scenario.
Ohio does not have a state-level FMLA equivalent for private employers, but state employees and certain other public employees have rights under Ohio law. Some employers also offer paid family leave or expanded leave under collective bargaining agreements or company policy. Pregnancy and disability protections under federal and Ohio law often run alongside FMLA rights.
Yes. For your own serious health condition or to care for a family member, you can take leave intermittently or on a reduced schedule when medically necessary. Intermittent leave for bonding with a new child requires employer agreement. Intermittent leave is one of the most common areas of dispute, particularly when employers attempt to require larger leave blocks than your medical certification supports.
Discuss your situation with attorney Sean H. Sobel. No obligation, no cost to talk.
Schedule a Consultation ›