Did Hospital’s Discouragement of FMLA use Amount to Interference?

What Do You Think?

Employers can engage in FMLA interference by taking adverse action, or threatening to do so, in response to an employee’s use of FMLA leave. 

That was a laboratory technician’s claim in a recent case against a hospital. The tech said her employer interfered with her FMLA rights by disciplining her for repeatedly arriving late to work because of a chronic medical condition. She said her supervisor threatened to fire her if she continued to arrive late.

Around the same time, the employer disciplined her for offending a coworker when she allegedly made an inappropriate hand gesture and an error in the blood bank department. It also found that she violated its substance abuse policy by taking a drug (Benadryl) that could impair her performance in the lab. The company fired her based on that incident and based on her behavior and performance.

The lab tech sued the employer for FMLA interference, claiming the employer's actions were meant to discourage her from using her leave.

To prove an FMLA interference claim, a plaintiff must show that:

• The employer interfered with, restrained, or denied her exercise or attempt to exercise FMLA rights; and
• The violation prejudiced her. 

Did the lab tech show that her employer interfered with her rights?

A. No. She failed to show that she suffered prejudice.

B. Yes. It threatened to fire her for being tardy.

C. No. Just discouraging an employee from using FMLA leave can’t constitute interference.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Adams v. Columbia/HCA of New Orleans, No. 24-30588 (5th Cir. 07/15/25), which held that the claimant’s couldn't connect the alleged discouragement to any harm she suffered.

The court acknowledged that an employer can engage in interference by discouraging an employee from utilizing her leave. Here, however, the lab tech couldn’t show that any discouragement her employer engaged in caused her actual harm. She did not, for example, contend that she suffered monetary lose as a result of being discouraged from taking FMLA leave.

Instead, she said she was prejudiced because was disciplined for being tardy. In each instance, she added, her supervisor threatened to fire her if she didn’t improve. 

“But this theory cannot support recoverable damages because  … [the employee] was ultimately terminated for reasons unrelated to her attendance,” the court said. 

The court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that she failed to establish a claim.

Share This Article: