Fired employee miscoded time off as FMLA leave – Employer prevails in court
Jamie asked for and was granted intermittent leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for a medical condition. As the expiration date for her FMLA leave approached, if Jamie wanted to extend it, she needed to complete and return a medical recertification. Jamie told her employer she wanted the extension but didn’t provide the requested certification.
The employer, therefore, denied Jamie’s request for extended FMLA leave.
Other form of leave
The company also gave employees 60 hours of unexcused absence (UA) leave every six months. As with FMLA leave, the company required employees to report and appropriately code their UAs in the attendance system.
If employees exceeded their allotted UA hours during a six-month period, their UA balance turned “negative.” Under company policy, the employer considered employees with a negative UA balance to have voluntarily resigned and terminated them.
Inaccurate coding
Jamie used 44.25 hours of UA leave. Even though the employer denied her request for more FMLA leave, she improperly coded 22.5 hours of absences as FMLA leave. These absences should have reduced her UA balance, but because she had incorrectly coded them as FMLA leave and not UAs, the company’s attendance reporting system didn’t reduce her UA balance.
Jamie continued to take more leave and either she or Nicole, her supervisor, coded the time off incorrectly as FMLA leave. Nicole audited Jamie’s reporting and discovered multiple discrepancies. Nicole concluded that if the days that Jamie had coded as FMLA leave were re-coded as UAs, her UA balance would turn negative, subjecting her to termination. Based on company policy, the employer fired Jamie.
Court sides with the employer
Jamie sued, claiming that the employer violated her FMLA rights.
The employer argued that it didn’t fire Jamie for taking FMLA leave, but for violating the company’s UA policy.
The court agreed with the employer’s request to have the case dismissed. The undisputed facts established that Jamie violated the company’s leave policies and was subject to termination regardless of her FMLA rights. Because Jamie didn’t give the employer a requested recertification, she lost her FMLA protections, as well.
Lacy v. Kohl’s Corporation, Eastern District of Wisconsin, No. 23-cv-0765, March 24, 2025.
Key to remember: Employees must still follow company policies including coding their absences correctly. Employees who fail to provide requested certifications risk their FMLA protections.