Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—11th Cir.: Freight handler who sought FMLA leave for wife’s pregnancy revives interference claim, (Nov 10, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

When he told a manager that he needed leave because his wife was having pregnancy-related health complications, the manager said that would be considered job abandonment.

A freight handler for FedEx Freight, Inc., who asked about FMLA leave related to his wife’s pregnancy and was later fired for alleged job abandonment after he told a manager he was leaving because his wife was having pregnancy-related health complications, has revived his FMLA interference claim as to the period preceding his wife’s labor, the Eleventh Circuit found in an unpublished opinion. Although there was insufficient evidence to sustain the employee’s FMLA retaliation or ADA associational discrimination claims, a reasonable jury could find that FedEx failed to notify him of his FMLA rights, and that he would not have been fired—for refusing to work overtime on the day of the alleged “abandonment”—if he had used the intermittent FMLA leave to which he was entitled (James v. FedEx Freight, Inc., No. 24-12907 (11th Cir. Nov. 7, 2025, unpublished)).

Full-time freight handler. The plaintiff, according to the court, worked as a full-time freight handler for FedEx from 2017 to 2020. As a freight handler, he loaded and unloaded trailers on the dock. His shift started at 5:30 p.m. and ended at 2:30 a.m. the next day.

Overtime expectations. Before clocking out at the end of a shift, FedEx required freight handlers to check with the dock supervisor to make sure no other trailers required loading or unloading. If there were still trailers that needed to be unloaded at the end of the shift, freight handlers were expected to work overtime.

First “coaching.” In November 2018, the freight handler left work at the end of his shift without notifying a supervisor. FedEx, in turn, gave him a “coaching session” for violating the rule.

Wife’s pregnancy and FMLA inquiry. In March 2020, he announced that his wife was pregnant with their first child. He specifically told the service center manager of FedEx, and the operations manager. Shortly after the announcement, he asked the former about the FMLA in the event he needed leave for his wife’s pregnancy.

“[M]oving too fast.” The service center manager told the freight handler he was “moving too fast” and that he would not need to inquire about leave until after the child was born.

No information, despite “high risk” pregnancy. Then, in June 2020, his wife’s doctor told her that her pregnancy was “high risk.” As such, she would no longer be able to work or drive, and she would need the employee to care for her as much as possible.

He told the two supervisors of his wife’s serious condition and informed them that there would be times when he needed to leave early or miss days to care for his wife. No one, however, informed him of his rights under the FMLA.

Another “coaching.” On June 25, 2020, he informed the operations manager that he would need to leave at the end of his shift to ensure his wife was okay and transport her to an appointment. After finishing his shift and trailer assignments, he was leaving work for the day, but the operations manager stopped him and told him he had to work overtime.

He responded that he had already worked some overtime that day and that he needed to get home to his wife, who was getting more ill due to her pregnancy. He refused to stay and left at his originally scheduled end time.

Management recorded the incident on FedEx’s Corrective Action Process Coaching Session form, which was added to his file. The form stated that “[The freight handler] refused [to] unload another trailer due [sic] he was on his 8th hour of duty... [it was] explained to him as a full time employee you are required to work overtime when needed.”

“Job abandonment.” Then, on July 1, 2020, the employee finished his trailer assignments and completed his scheduled shift near 2:30 a.m. Throughout his shift, his wife was giving him updates on pain she was experiencing and her fear that something was wrong with her pregnancy. At the end of his shift, he clocked out and began to leave the worksite with a group of other freight handlers, but the operations manager stopped him as he was leaving and told him to come to the office to talk.

The employee told the operations manager that his wife was having health complications related to the pregnancy and that he needed to leave, but the operations manager said this would be considered job abandonment. The employee left the worksite, and the next day, after reviewing a report of the incident, the service center manager requested his termination.

Next day and parental leave. The next day, he took his wife to the hospital. Their doctors determined that the pregnancy was in such a dangerous state that the baby had to be delivered immediately—two and a half months early. After the baby was born, the employee applied for and received paid parental leave from July 6 to 17.

Submission of FMLA paperwork and discharge. On July 20, the employee submitted FMLA paperwork for additional leave, which FedEx later approved. That same day, however, FedEx’s employee relations advisor contacted him and informed him that he was under investigation for job abandonment. He explained his wife’s medical issues and that he was awaiting an FMLA decision from the U.S. Department of Labor. A couple of days later, the employee relations advisor received an email alerting him that the employee had been approved for FMLA leave. Later that day, the employee relations advisor fired him.

Lawsuit and decision below. The employee then sued FedEx. FedEx moved for summary judgment and filed a statement of facts. The district court ultimately found that FedEx was entitled to summary judgment on all his claims, and he timely appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

FMLA interference. The appeals court first found that summary judgment against the FMLA interference claim was improper. Making reasonable inferences in the employee’s favor, the Eleventh Circuit found that a reasonable jury could find that he was reprimanded, and ultimately fired, not for failing to check in, as the employer alleged after the fact, but for refusing to work overtime and complete “additional assignments,” as FedEx’s own contemporaneous communications suggested. And here, had he used the intermittent FMLA leave to which he was entitled so he could care for his wife’s pregnancy complications, he would not have been fired for refusing to work overtime.

The district court thus erred in granting summary judgment as to the FMLA interference claim for the period preceding his wife’s labor because a reasonable jury could find that FedEx failed to notify him of his FMLA rights and that that interference prejudiced him.

Retaliation under the FMLA. Summary judgment was appropriate, however, against the employee’s FMLA retaliation claim. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the district court that he failed to show a causal connection between his FMLA-protected activity and the adverse employment actions. For the pre-labor period, he fails to show a causal connection because he was disciplined for not checking in with a supervisor both before and after his wife became pregnant. In the post-labor period, though the employee relations advisor did grant his supervisors’ request to terminate him on the same day he learned his FMLA leave was approved, the service center manager sought his termination on July 2, before he requested leave.

Associational disability discrimination. Finally, the Eleventh Circuit found that the employee’s associational disability discrimination claim failed for the same reasons he could not establish FMLA retaliation: he could not make the required showing that his wife’s pregnancy was a determining factor in FedEx’s employment decisions.

The case is No. 24-12907.

Judge: Per curiam.

Attorneys: Sidney M. Jackson (Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb) for Teryl James. Richard J.R. Raleigh (Womble Bond Dickinson) for FedEx Freight, Inc.

Companies: FedEx Freight, Inc.

Cases: EmployeeLeave Retaliation DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge AlabamaNews FloridaNews GeorgiaNews