Employee admits ability to work, dooms FMLA case

After more than 20 years working for the employer, Leigh took leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) due to mental health concerns. When she returned to work, the employer said it was terminating her based on unsatisfactory job performance discovered while she was on leave.

Leigh sued, arguing that the employer terminated her in retaliation for taking FMLA leave.

In court, however, Leigh admitted that she was able to do the essential functions of her job at all relevant times. Both she and her doctor agreed that she was never unable to perform the functions of her position, so she wasn’t incapacitated under the FMLA.

This comment doomed Leigh’s argument that she was entitled to FMLA leave.

Under the FMLA, even when employees aren’t entitled to leave, if issues like Leigh’s pop up, employees:

• Could argue that an employer “represented” (i.e., indicated) that they were eligible,
• Had reason to believe they could rely on that representation, and
• Relied on that representation to their detriment (i.e., they get disciplined for taking FMLA leave).

In Leigh’s situation, the court found that she didn’t show that she detrimentally relied on the employer’s representation that she was eligible for leave. Instead, Leigh testified that she would have taken the full amount of leave regardless of the employer’s approval.

Because Leigh didn’t have an FMLA serious health condition and didn’t rely on the employer’s representation, the court ruled in favor of the employer, resolving the case and preventing a jury trial.

Holland v. Texas Christian University, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-10567, September 8, 2025