Sixth Circuit Rules on Dismissal Under FMLA Claims

If the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) had a personality, it would be that one friend who’s very supportive… but also insists you follow the group chat rules. Miss a step, skip a notice, forget a certification, or say “I’ll explain later” (you won’t), and suddenly your case is getting side-eyed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) has a steady drumbeat in FMLA cases: employees have real protections, employers can enforce real policies, and courts will absolutely dismiss claims that can’t get past the legal basicsespecially when the evidence doesn’t support retaliation or interference.

Quick FMLA Refresher (Because the Court Will Assume You Know This)

The FMLA generally provides eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for certain family and medical reasons, with continuation of group health benefits under the same terms as if the employee hadn’t taken leave. The statute also prohibits employers from interfering with FMLA rights or retaliating against employees for exercising (or attempting to exercise) those rights.

Two Common Types of FMLA Claims

• Interference (also called “entitlement”): The employer interfered with, restrained, or denied the exercise (or attempted exercise) of an FMLA right.
• Retaliation (also called “discrimination”): The employer took an adverse action because the employee exercised or tried to exercise FMLA rights.

Here’s the thing: “FMLA” is not a magical force field. It doesn’t give anyone a free pass to ignore workplace rules, but it does require employers to treat protected leave as protectedeven when it’s inconvenient, messy, or scheduled at the same time as the company’s biggest deadline (how do these things always line up?).

What “Dismissal” Means in These Cases (Spoiler: It Can Mean Two Different Things)

The headline “dismissal under FMLA claims” can describe two scenarios that get mixed together:

1) Dismissal of the Lawsuit (Motion to Dismiss or Summary Judgment)

This is the court saying: “Even if we assume the facts you allege are true (or even if we look at the evidence), the law doesn’t support your claim.” A case can be tossed early at the motion to dismiss stage (the complaint doesn’t plausibly plead a claim) or later at summary judgment (the evidence doesn’t create a real dispute for a jury).

2) Dismissal from Employment (Termination After Leave Issues)

That’s the workplace action that often triggers the lawsuit. The Sixth Circuit’s decisions repeatedly focus on whether the termination was because of protected leaveor because of something else the employer honestly believed happened.

The Sixth Circuit’s Greatest Hits: Themes That Decide Who Gets Past the Courthouse Door

The Request for Leave Can Be Protected ActivityEven If Entitlement Is Disputed

One major trap (for employers and employees alike) is assuming protection only starts once leave is approved. The Sixth Circuit has emphasized that requesting leave can itself be protected activity. Translation: you don’t get to punish someone for asking the question, even if the final answer is, “Actually, you’re not eligible.”

That concept matters a lot at the motion-to-dismiss stage, where the question is whether the employee plausibly alleged protected activity and a retaliatory response. If a complaint says “I requested leave for a qualifying reason and got fired right after,” courts will scrutinize the detailsbut the claim may survive if it plausibly alleges protected activity and a causal link.

The “Honest Belief” Rule Can End Retaliation Claims (Even When the Employee Swears They’re Innocent)

The Sixth Circuit has long recognized a principle often called the honest belief rule: if an employer honestly believed the reason it gave for terminationbased on a reasonably informed and considered decisionthen the employee has a tougher time proving the reason was pretext for retaliation.

This does not mean the employer must run a perfect investigation with a cinematic corkboard wall and red string. It means courts look for whether the employer had particularized facts and acted reasonably, not whether it achieved omniscience.

Medical Certifications Are Often EstimatesNot “Hard Caps” on Unforeseeable Intermittent Leave

Intermittent leave is where many FMLA disputes go to multiply like gremlins. The Sixth Circuit has underscored that when a condition involves unpredictable flare-ups, a provider’s certification describing frequency and duration can function as an estimate, not a strict limit that automatically turns every “extra” day into unprotected leave.

That doesn’t mean employees can take leave “in whatever increment they choose” without communicating. It means employers should treat the certification as guidance and then evaluate whether particular absences were connected to the qualifying condition, using reasonable follow-up questions and consistent procedures.

Notice Rules Matter, But Context Matters Too

Employers can enforce reasonable call-in and notice procedures, and employees generally must give appropriate notice. But the Sixth Circuit repeatedly flags that notice adequacy can be highly fact-specificespecially with sudden flare-ups and “unusual circumstances.”

Key Sixth Circuit Decisions (Plain-English Takeaways)

Milman v. Fieger & Fieger (2023): A Dismissal Gets Reversed

In Milman, the employee asked for unpaid leave but did not actually take leave. The district court dismissed the FMLA retaliation claim, reasoning she didn’t allege entitlement to FMLA leave. The Sixth Circuit reversed, focusing on whether the request for leave can be protected activity. The decision is a warning label for employers: if you treat a leave request like a fireable offense, don’t be shocked when litigation survives the first round.

Practical takeaway: if you’re evaluating risk, don’t ask only “Was she entitled?” Ask “Did she try to exercise a protected rightand did we react badly?”

Porter v. Jackson Township Highway Department (2025): Summary Judgment Affirmed on Retaliation

In Porter, the employee was on leave after a shoulder injury and surgery. The employer received information suggesting he was doing manual labor despite restrictions and obtained investigative evidence (including video observations). The district court granted summary judgment, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the retaliation claim, emphasizing that Porter failed to show the employer’s stated reason was pretext. The court leaned on the honest-belief concept: if the employer reasonably relied on particularized observations and made a considered decision, the employee must do more than simply disagree with the conclusion.

Practical takeaway: retaliation claims often rise or fall on pretext. If the employer has a well-documented, reasonably investigated basis for discipline unrelated to the protected leave itself, the court may dismiss the claim.

Jackson v. USPS (2025): No “Hard Cap” for Unforeseeable Intermittent Leave

In Jackson, the Sixth Circuit addressed the idea that a medical certification could create a strict monthly cap on intermittent leave for an unpredictable condition. The court rejected the “hard cap” approach for unforeseeable intermittent leave, describing certification frequency as an estimate in that context and remanding for further analysis of notice and qualification questions for specific absences.

Practical takeaway: employers should be cautious about treating certification estimates as automatic disqualifiers. A better approach is consistent procedures, reasonable inquiries, and evaluating whether the absence was tied to the condition.

Crispell v. FCA US (2024): When Fact Disputes Keep Claims Alive

Crispell illustrates why courts sometimes refuse to dismiss FMLA-related claims at summary judgment: the record can contain factual disputes about notice, policy enforcement, and whether the employer’s justification is the real reason for discipline. The opinion discusses workplace call-in requirements, “unusual circumstances,” and how a jury could interpret competing accounts. When credibility and context are central, dismissal becomes harder.

Practical takeaway: if the evidence suggests inconsistent enforcement, shifting explanations, or ignored medical context, the court may let a jury decide.

Chapman v. Brentlinger Enterprises (2024): Not Every Unpleasant Act Is Retaliation

Chapman is a reminder that FMLA retaliation claims still require a legally meaningful adverse action and evidence supporting retaliation. The Sixth Circuit’s mixed outcomes in the case show courts are willing to slice claims into partssome may be dismissed while others continuedepending on the evidence and the nature of the conduct.

Practical takeaway: courts look closely at what actually happened, when it happened, and whether the challenged action would deter a reasonable employee from exercising FMLA rights.

Why Claims Get Dismissed in the Sixth Circuit (And How to Avoid the Usual Pitfalls)

Common Reasons Courts Toss FMLA Claims

• Protected activity isn’t plausibly alleged (or the complaint doesn’t connect the request/leave to the adverse action with enough factual detail).
• No plausible causation: timing alone is weak when the timeline is long or when there are intervening events (discipline, policy violations, documented performance issues).
• Pretext can’t be shown: the employer’s reason is supported by documentation, consistent practice, and a reasonable investigation.
• Notice/certification breakdowns: the employee fails to provide sufficient information, or the employer consistently enforces neutral call-in rules.
• No real interference: the employee can’t point to a denied benefit, discouraged use of leave, or concrete harm tied to the alleged interference.

What Helps a Claim Survive (Employees and Their Counsel Take Note)

• Specific facts about the request/leave: when it was requested, what reason was given, who received the notice, and what documentation was provided.
• Clean timelines: close temporal proximity plus other supporting evidence (comments, sudden policy enforcement, inconsistent explanations).
• Comparator evidence: similarly situated employees who violated similar rules but weren’t disciplined (and why they’re truly comparable).
• Inconsistency in the employer’s story: shifting reasons, missing documentation, or an investigation that looks more like “decision first, facts later.”

What Helps Employers Win Dismissals (Without Turning HR into a Paperwork Dungeon)

• Clear written procedures for requesting leave and calling in, applied consistently across employees and departments.
• Documented, neutral reasons for discipline that predate the leave request (or are clearly independent of it).
• Reasonable investigations when misconduct is suspected, with particularized facts and a considered decision-making process.
• Proper notices to employees about rights, responsibilities, eligibility, and designation, plus consistent follow-up on certifications.

A Practical Checklist for Staying Out of the Danger Zone

If You’re an Employee

1. Give notice as early as possible, and say enough for the employer to understand the leave may be FMLA-qualifying.
2. Follow call-in rules unless you truly can’t; if “unusual circumstances” happen, document what made compliance impossible.
3. Return certifications on time (or communicate delays) and keep copies of what you provided and when.
4. Don’t assume your manager knows your condition detailscommunicate through the proper HR/leave channel when available.

If You’re an Employer or HR Leader

1. Train managers: “FMLA” isn’t a vibe; it’s a process. Their casual comments can become Exhibit A.
2. Use consistent procedures and avoid “special rules” that appear only after someone requests leave.
3. When investigating suspected abuse, gather particularized facts and document the decision-making steps.
4. Don’t treat certification estimates as automatic disqualifiers for unpredictable intermittent leave; evaluate absences reasonably.

FAQs (The Stuff Everyone Asks Five Minutes Before the Deadline)

Can an employer fire someone on FMLA leave?

Potentially, yesif the termination is for a legitimate reason unrelated to taking protected leave (for example, documented misconduct, policy violations, or layoffs) and the employer can show it would have made the same decision even if no leave had been taken. But firing someone because they requested or used FMLA leave is where retaliation risk spikes.

Does an employee have to say “FMLA” out loud?

Not necessarily. What matters is whether the employee provided enough information for the employer to understand the leave may be for an FMLA-qualifying reason. That said, clarity helps everyoneespecially when intermittent leave and call-in rules are involved.

What is the “honest belief” rule in plain English?

It’s the idea that if an employer honestly believed its stated reason for discipline (based on a reasonably informed process), the employee must do more than claim, “That’s wrong.” They need evidence the reason was a cover for retaliationlike a weak investigation, ignored contrary evidence, inconsistent explanations, or selective enforcement.

Are medical certifications strict limits on intermittent leave?

Not always. For unpredictable conditions, the Sixth Circuit has emphasized that certifications can be estimates rather than hard caps. Employers still can (and should) evaluate whether specific absences are tied to the qualifying condition using consistent, reasonable procedures.

Conclusion: The Sixth Circuit’s Message Is Pretty Consistent (Even If FMLA Paperwork Isn’t)

The Sixth Circuit’s FMLA decisions draw a firm line between protected leave and unprotected conduct, and they’re equally firm about what courts need to see before letting a case proceed.

If an employee plausibly alleges they requested or used leave and got hit with an adverse action because of it, dismissal may be premature. But if the employer can show a consistent process, reasonable investigation, and a well-supported non-retaliatory reasonespecially under the honest-belief framework courts may dismiss the claim before it ever reaches a jury.

The best outcome for everyone is boring: clear notice, consistent procedures, good documentation, and decisions that would make sense even if the word “FMLA” never existed. (Yes, boring is the goal. In employment law, boring is beautiful.)

Real-World Experiences Related to Sixth Circuit FMLA Dismissals (Extra )

When people hear “dismissal under FMLA claims,” they often imagine one dramatic moment: a leave request, a slammed door, a lawsuit, cue courtroom soundtrack. In reality, the experiences that lead to a claim being dismissed (or surviving) usually look more like a slow-motion miscommunication paradeemails, call logs, policy handbooks, and that one manager who keeps texting “u ok?” instead of following the company’s leave process.

Experience Pattern #1: The “I Asked for Leave and Everything Changed” Feeling

Many employees describe a sudden shift after a leave request: schedules get tighter, attendance rules become “very important all of a sudden,” and minor issues that used to be handled with a quick chat become formal write-ups. That feeling can be genuineeven when the employer believes it’s simply enforcing neutral rules. The gap between those perceptions matters, because courts aren’t deciding vibes; they’re deciding evidence. When an employee can point to concrete changes (new scrutiny, inconsistent discipline, suspicious timing, or comments about the leave), the case may have enough traction to survive early dismissal. When the record shows the same rules applied the same way to everyone, the emotional experience may be real, but the legal claim can still get tossed.

Experience Pattern #2: HR’s “We Need Documentation” Loop

HR teams often experience FMLA disputes as a process problem before it becomes a legal problem. The leave administrator needs a certification. The employee thinks the doctor already sent it. The doctor’s office thinks the employee gave permission “at the last appointment.” Meanwhile, the supervisor just wants to know who’s covering Tuesday’s shift. In the Sixth Circuit, the best “experience-based” lesson is painfully practical: who asked for what, when, and how was it answered? When documentation is cleanrequests, notices, follow-up questions, and responsescourts can quickly sort valid protections from unsupported accusations. When documentation is chaotic (or nonexistent), courts may hesitate to dismiss because factual disputes bloom.

Experience Pattern #3: The Intermittent Leave Headache (For Everyone)

Employees with unpredictable conditions often describe intermittent leave as stressful: you’re sick, you’re calling in, and you’re worried each absence looks suspicious. Supervisors, on the other hand, experience intermittent leave as operational uncertainty: staffing becomes a puzzle with missing pieces. That tension can lead to a “gotcha” mindseteither side assuming the other is acting in bad faith. Sixth Circuit decisions addressing estimates versus hard caps reflect what people experience day-to-day: medicine is not a metronome. A certification may say “two days a month,” but reality can say, “Surprise: three.” The experiences that end well tend to share one trait: both sides communicate through the process (call-in procedures, follow-up questions, timely medical notes) rather than through frustration.

Experience Pattern #4: Investigations That Feel Personal

When employers investigate suspected leave abusesurveillance, interviews, checking restrictionsemployees often experience it as humiliating or accusatory. Employers often experience it as necessary risk control, especially when they believe someone is working another job, violating restrictions, or misrepresenting a condition. Courts in the Sixth Circuit have shown they may side with an employer that made a reasonably informed decision based on particularized facts, even if the employee disputes it. That doesn’t mean investigations should be heavy-handed. The experiences that reduce litigation risk tend to be the ones where the employer documents a fair process: what information triggered concern, what was reviewed, whether the employee had an opportunity to explain, and how the final decision was reached.

Experience Pattern #5: The “This Could’ve Been Avoided” Aftermath

After a claim is dismissed (or survives), both sides often look back and see simple forks in the road. Employees wish they had saved messages, clarified the reason for leave, or followed the call-in rule more carefully. Employers wish they had trained the supervisor, avoided sloppy comments, and sent clearer notices. The real lived lesson in Sixth Circuit case law is that outcomes are often driven by the unglamorous stuff: consistent procedures, reasonable follow-up, and documentation that makes sense to someone who wasn’t there. If you want the story to end with “dismissed,” your best move is to make the record boring, complete, and consistent long before a lawyer ever reads it.