Did Recruiter’s Request for Time Off to Care for Ailing Spouse Keep FMLA Case Alive?

What Do You Think?

The FMLA is not like a Harry Potter movie: it doesn’t take magic words to open the door to medical leave or to trigger an employer’s obligations under the statute.

But what if an employee seeking time off to care for a family member never mentions FMLA and never describes her family member’s disability?  How vague can a request be and still trigger the employer’s FMLA obligations? One case addresses what might be or might not be enough to get an employee's lawsuit alleging FMLA interference past the dismissal stage.

The employee in that case began working for a healthcare staffing agency as a Travel Nurse Recruiter in March 2023. She alleged that she requested, and was denied, time off to care for her husband on two separate occasions. In April 2024, the second occasion, she told the company that her husband's health had deteriorated and that she needed time off to care for him. Her supervisor, she said, denied the request and told her to resign.

The Recruiter sued the company for FMLA interference. The company asked the court to dismiss the claim. The Recruiter didn’t state a plausible claim, it said, because she never gave notice of her intention to take FMLA leave.

To state a plausible claim of FMLA interference, an employee must plausibly allege that:

1. She was an eligible employee;
2. The defendant was an employer as defined under the FMLA;
3. She was entitled to leave under the FMLA;
4. She gave the employer notice of her intention to take leave; and 
5. The employer denied the employee FMLA benefits to which she was entitled.

Could the court dismiss the case for failure to state a plausible claim?

A. Yes. She asked for time off but never referenced the statute.

B. No. What she supposedly told the employer should have put it on notice that she was seeking FMLA leave.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Warner v. Health Carousel, LLC, No. 3:24-cv-323 (S.D. Ohio 04/25/25), which held that the case could go forward.

The court noted that at this early stage of the case, the Recruiter merely had to state a plausible claim to avoid dismissal. The court acknowledged that she appeared to have not mentioned the FMLA to her employer. However, she contended that she twice asked the company for time off to care for her ailing husband and that the company denied her requests.

“While Plaintiff does not allege that she informed Defendant of her specific intent to take leave under the FMLA, ‘in providing notice, the employee need not use any magic words’ to evince her intent to take FMLA leave,” the court wrote. Instead, the key issue was whether the information she provided to her employer was reasonably adequate under the circumstances to inform the employer that she was seeking leave under the FMLA.

“It is plausible that Plaintiff, in saying that she needed time off to care for a sick immediate family member, complied with Defendant's policies to put it on notice of Plaintiff's intent to take FMLA, and that Defendant, in telling her that she could not take time off, was denying an FMLA request,” the court wrote.

It's a good reminder for employer's not to wait for an employee to refer to the statute or any particular words before responding in accordance with the FMLA.

In this case, because the Recruiter established a plausible claim, the court refused the employer’s request to dismiss the case.

Share This Article: