Employer’s FMLA documentation saved the day in court

An employer didn’t interfere with an employee’s rights under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by firing her shortly after approving intermittent leave, according to a federal court in Arizona.

Julie, the employee, began working for the company in December 2019. Michelle, Julie’s supervisor, issued a performance review in August 2020 that identified positive aspects of her work but also raised concerns. Michelle cited consistent feedback that Julie sometimes became argumentative or confrontational during disagreements.

The following month, Julie told Michelle that she needed surgery in October. Michelle immediately contacted HR, but Julie wasn’t eligible for FMLA leave. The company, however, approved 2 weeks of leave for the surgery and recovery, as well as additional pre-surgery leave.

Although Julie became eligible for FMLA leave in December, she didn’t say she needed ongoing job-protected leave — meaning she didn’t provide her employer with “notice” of the need for leave, which is a requirement under the law.

Julie’s job performance continued to decline. In May the following year, the employer put Julie on a performance improvement plan (PIP).

When she attributed her job performance problems to her health during the PIP meeting, HR sent Julie FMLA information the next day. The employer approved her request for intermittent leave on June 4. On June 17, however, Michelle reported that Julie laughed at and mocked her during a meeting about required compliance training. Michelle recommended termination, and the employer fired Julie the following day.

Julie sued, claiming that the employer should have notified her about FMLA leave before the PIP meeting because it already knew about her health problems. But the evidence didn’t show that the employer had notice of the need for more leave after her October 2020 surgery. Although she occasionally missed a few hours or a day for medical appointments, Julie didn’t connect those absences to a serious illness. Once she linked her performance problems to her health during the PIP meeting, the employer promptly provided FMLA information.

The employer gave Julie all the leave she asked for. It also had substantial evidence of Julie’s poor job performance — the reason for firing her — dating back to well before her leave request. The June meeting incident prompted the termination recommendation.

With all that, the court found in favor of the employer, allowing the case to be thrown out.

Thurston v. Western Alliance Bank, District of Arizona, No. CV-23-01097, July 15, 2026.

Key to remember: Employers that carefully document an employee’s poor job performance have a lower risk of violating the FMLA if firing the employee.

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.