Employee didn’t follow company notice policy, loses FMLA claim

Employee misses work

Five years after he began working for the company, Dillon, an employee, transferred to a different department. During his interview for the transfer, he disclosed that he might need to take time off to care for his young son who had ongoing health problems.

As part of the transfer, Dillon had to complete three 80-hour training courses. During the first course, he missed a full day due to a stomach bug and fever. He told his instructor about his absence but didn’t tell Robert, his supervisor, as required by company policy. During the third course, he left class early to meet a roofer about storm damage to his house. Once again, he didn’t tell Robert.

Two days later, on March 10, he again missed a full day of class when he stayed home to take care of his son, who Dillon thought had COVID-19, but tested negative.

Investigation

After the trainer alerted Robert of Dillon’s absence, Robert started an investigation that revealed that Dillon had signed the attendance record for the March 10 class several days later. It also revealed that he had reported 1.5 hours of overtime for the day he left early and that his hours incorrectly reflected that he worked full days on the days of his absences.

Dillon admitted the hours were incorrect and that personal stressors related to his son’s poor health caused him to not let Robert know about his March 10 absence. The department, however, decided to fire Dillon for misreporting overtime, unbecoming conduct, and untruthfulness. Dillon resigned rather than being fired and sued under the FMLA and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In court

The employer argued that Dillon didn’t let it know about the need for FMLA leave and that his son didn’t have a chronic FMLA serious health condition as Dillon claimed.

The court ruled Dillon didn’t tell Robert as soon as practicable of the March 10 leave when it arose, despite knowing of his need to take leave. He didn’t provide such notice until days after the fact, and he didn’t follow the company policy for requesting leave.

The court also found that Dillon’s son suffered bouts of short-term ailments, but they didn’t amount to an FMLA serious health condition.

Given all this, Dillon’s FMLA claims failed.

Thompson v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government, Western District of Kentucky, No. 3:24-cv-00243, June 16, 2026.

Court decisions are based on the specific facts presented and each court’s interpretation of the law. Because courts may reach different conclusions, similar situations can lead to different outcomes. Employers should avoid relying on a single case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws, and seeking advice when needed.

Key to remember: Employers may hold employees to their usual and customary call-in procedures and may require employees or family members to have an FMLA serious health condition.