2 FMLA Court Lessons Every HR Team Should Learn

The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) statute doesn’t change often. Nor do its regulations. The compliance landscape, however, can change through case law, as courts continue to address situations employers grapple with.

Here are 2 recent cases that illustrate lessons employers learned about FMLA leave administration.

Case #1

Susan needed time off for her own condition. On May 23, Susan’s employer asked for an FMLA certification, indicating in general terms that she had at least 15 calendar days to get a certification, but didn’t specify a particular deadline date.

Susan originally planned to return to work on June 16. She didn’t return to work on June 16, nor did she provide a certification on or before June 16. On June 15, she was still extremely sick and emailed her employer that she would need to remain on leave until June 22. She said she would get a certification.

On June 16, however, the employer fired Susan because she hadn’t provided an FMLA certification, and she sued.

In court, the employer tried to argue that Susan wasn’t protected because she never actually took FMLA leave, in part because she didn’t get a certification.

The court said that it didn’t matter that Susan didn’t obtain the FMLA certification in time, since the employer never gave her a due date for it. She told her employer that she wanted to take FMLA leave and requested the necessary paperwork. That was enough to give her FMLA protections.

Gossett v. Jiudicy Inc. D/B/A Labor Finders, Middle District of Georgia, No. 7:24-CV-00067, February 5, 2026.

Case #2

In April, Toby asked his employer for FMLA leave for chronic kidney stones. He provided a certification for intermittent leave up to 3 times per month for 1 day per episode.

Things went fine until August 23, when Toby asked for time off because his kids were starting a new school. When vacation wasn’t available, he said it would be FMLA leave.

Toby ended up taking four days of medical leave and provided a doctor’s note stating that he was under a doctor’s care from August 24 to August 27 because the family situation aggravated his condition.

Based on Toby’s initial request, the employer charged Toby with FMLA leave abuse and fired him.

Toby sued, and the court disagreed with the employer’s argument that he had misused FMLA leave.

The court found that the employer relied only on Toby’s initial request, and not the ensuing information. The totality of the information pointed out that Toby didn’t misuse leave, as he had to deal with both family and medical needs. The doctor’s note was also evidence that Toby’s FMLA request was legitimate.

Pack v. CSX Transportation, Inc.; Southern District of West Virginia; No. 3:24-0688; January 14, 2026.

Key to remember: Employers should give exact due dates for a certification, and look at all the facts of a situation before taking a negative employment action.