Transgender employee missed FMLA leave request step, lost court case

Employees at the company had to request leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) through a third-party administrator (TPA). They could, afterwards, inform their manager of the leave. The employer communicated this process to employees, and Russia, a transgender employee, had previously followed this procedure when taking FMLA leave.

If employees reported their use of FMLA leave only to their manager, they would get the leave, but the employer considered it falsification of FMLA leave. To ensure compliance with the procedure, the employer asked managers to cross-reference the TPA records with their own records.

By October 2020, Russia had accumulated 24 days in which he reported FMLA leave to his manager without contacting the TPA. Wilmer, a business manager, noticed the discrepancy between the employer’s and the TPA’s records on Russia’s FMLA-related absences and contacted the TPA to confirm that Russia failed to properly report his use of FMLA leave.

In a meeting with Wilmer the following day, Russia couldn’t explain why he had failed to report his FMLA leave to the TPA. Wilmer, therefore, recommended to his boss that Russia be fired for FMLA falsification.

The following January, the employer fired Russia, citing the 24 absences and his failure to report them to the TPA.

Russia sued, claiming that the employer discriminated against him and interfered with his FMLA rights because he was transgender.

In court, Russia tried to argue that he was treated more harshly because of his protected characteristic. But the employer showed that about the same time that it fired Russia, it fired four other employees for FMLA falsification, none of whom were transgender.

The court found that the employer had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing Russia.

The employer’s overall process required managers to cross-reference records, and those records showed that Russia failed to report his absences correctly. The employer also applied its policy consistently, treating similarly situated employees equally.

Brown v. Chicago Transit Authority, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1750, June 24, 2026.

Key to remember: Employers can beat a claim if they consistently apply their policies and have strong documentation. Those that use a TPA benefit from having a review process between TPA records and employer records.

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.