Summary
This Sixth Circuit opinion reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States Postal Service in an employment dispute involving the Family Medical Leave Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The appellate court addresses whether a medical certification creates a hard cap on intermittent FMLA leave, clarifying that it does not, and remands for further analysis of proper notice requirements for specific absences. The court also holds that settling one FMLA interference claim does not waive arguments regarding whether those absences count toward a Last Chance Agreement violation. Finally, the court affirms the dismissal of other claims while reversing and remanding the remainder.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a medical certification that estimates intermittent FMLA leave creates a hard cap on leave days.
- Whether Jackson gave proper notice for his FMLA absences on December 26, 2018, March 11, 2019, and March 26, 2019.
- Whether Jackson’s termination under the LCA constitutes FMLA interference or retaliation.
- Whether USPS’s denial of reasonable accommodations under the Rehabilitation Act was proper.
- Whether the district court erred in deeming Jackson’s argument on the certification cap forfeited.
- Whether the Sixth Circuit’s “honest belief” rule applies to the retaliation claim.
Holdings
- The district court’s holding that the certification creates a hard cap is reversed; an estimate does not impose a strict limit on unforeseeable intermittent leave.
- The district court’s finding that Jackson failed to give 30‑day notice for a foreseeable appointment is affirmed as harmless error.
- The district court’s conclusion that Jackson did not qualify for FMLA leave on those dates is reversed and the issue is remanded for the district court to determine whether proper notice was given.
- The district court’s decision on the interference and retaliation claims is vacated pending further fact‑finding on the notice issues.
- The district court’s holding that USPS did not deny reasonable accommodations is affirmed.
- The district court erred; Jackson’s minimal argument prevents forfeiture.
- The honest belief rule does not apply because genuine issues of notice remain.
Key quotations
“We conclude that in this context, given the unpredictable nature of sickle cell symptoms, the listed number of days is merely an approximation or estimate.” (Page 16)
“The FMLA entitles an eligible employee to a total of 12 workweeks of leave during a 12‑ month period for qualifying conditions.” (Page 24)
Factual background
Jackson, a mail clerk with sickle cell anemia, worked for USPS under a Last Chance Agreement that limited unscheduled absences. He took intermittent FMLA leave and was terminated for alleged violations of the LCA. He sued alleging FMLA interference, retaliation, and violations of the Rehabilitation Act.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment in part for USPS, finding Jackson failed to establish a prima facie FMLA claim on most dates and that he did not give proper notice. The appellate court reviewed de novo.
Remand instructions
Remand to the district court to determine whether Jackson gave proper notice for his March 11 and March 26, 2019, absences and whether a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding his FMLA entitlement on those dates.