Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—E.D. Mich.: Field technician failed to show he engaged in protected activity under the FMLA, (Aug 8, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

He also failed to offer sufficient evidence showing that he suffered incapacity rising to the level of a serious medical condition.

An employer was granted a motion for summary judgment against an employee’s claims of FMLA interference and retaliation related to work-place-induced anxiety by a federal district court in Michigan. According to the employee, he began experiencing anxiety attacks after receiving negative work reviews, allegedly because of union membership. He filed suit against his employer alleging various claims, including FMLA interference/retaliation. Because the employee had not shown that the anxiety he suffered qualified as a serious health condition, or that he provided the employer adequate notice of an intent to take FMLA leave, the court determined that the employee had not shown that he was entitled to FMLA leave (Paris v. MacAllister Machinery Co., Inc. dba Michigan CAT, No. 19-12053 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2025)).

Field technician. The employee was initially hired in 2014 as a service trainee by the employer. Over the years, he was promoted several times, eventually being assigned the role of field technician in May 2016. As a field technician, the employee was assigned to work exclusively at a customer location, where it was responsible for full service on their trucks purchased from the employer. The employee was a dues-paying member of the union, and subject to a collective bargaining agreement.

A few years into his employment, the employee began receiving negative work reviews, which he attributes to harassment and discrimination because of his membership in the union. In 2017, the employee was reclassified to a Service Technician 1. About one year later, he was again reclassified to a Service Technician 3. Both reclassifications included a pay reduction. On October 31, 2018, the employee was given a last-chance agreement.

Towards the end of his employment in 2018, the employee began experiencing severe anxiety. According to the employee, his anxiety stemmed from the fact that he was unfairly targeted and was demoted.

FMLA leave request. On December 19, 2018, the employee was confronted by his supervisor regarding whether he was wearing the proper protective gear—steel-toed boots. The supervisor stepped on the front of his shoes to confirm. The employee reported the incident to human resources and expressed that he was having an “anxiety attack” and needed to take the rest of the day off. He was informed that he could utilize leave under the FMLA. On December 21, 2018, the employee inquired about the process necessary to request FMLA leave for his “medical condition.” The employee was provided the employer’s FMLA request form and asked to return the completed form at his earliest convenience. He did not return the completed form.

The employee filed suit against the employer alleging (1) breach of the CBA and breach of the duty of fair representation by his union; (2) compensatory damages for violation of the CBA; (3) interference/retaliation under the FMLA; (4) harassment and discrimination on the basis of age under state law; (5) retaliation in violation of state law; and (6) hostile work environment in violation of state law. The only remaining claim is the interference/retaliation under the FMLA.

FMLA interference. To establish a prima facie case of FMLA interference, a plaintiff must show that (1) he was an eligible employee; (2) the defendant was an employer as defined under the FMLA; (3) the employee was entitled to leave under the FMLA; (4) the employee gave the employer notice of his intention to take leave; and (5) the employer denied the employee FMLA benefits to which he was entitled.

Here, the employer argued that the employee failed to establish a prima facie case for FMLA interference. Specifically, the employer asserted that the employee cannot establish the final three prongs of the interference analysis because there is no evidence showing that the employee was entitled to FMLA leave, that he gave notice of an intent to take FMLA leave, or that it denied him FMLA leave.

For his part, the employee argued that his FMLA interference claim must survive as a matter of law because he has shown that he was suffering from severe anxiety, which is “a condition that falls squarely within the statutory definition of a ‘serious health condition.’” He further argued that he provided sufficient notice of the need for FMLA leave, and the employer interfered with his right to take FMLA leave by “failing to approve his leave request and terminating him shortly thereafter.”

FMLA entitlement. The court determined that the employee had not shown that he was entitled to FMLA leave. In this case, the employee testified that he did not see a mental health professional to address his anxiety. Further, while the employee emailed a human resources representative stating that he was “mentally distraught and having an anxiety attack” and “taking personal time off the rest of the day[,]” there was no further evidence showing that he suffered incapacity rising to the level of a serious medical condition. At no point did the employee declare that he experienced any duration of incapacity related to his anxiety or required ongoing treatment. Therefore, the employee had not shown that the anxiety he suffered qualified as a serious health condition.

FMLA notice. Moreover, the court concluded that the employee did not provide the employer adequate notice of an intent to take FMLA leave. The employee argued that he informed the employer that he was experiencing severe anxiety, which rendered him unable to perform his job duties, and communicated his need for leave to address his health condition.” However, there was no record evidence showing the employee requesting leave. Because the employee provided no evidence showing he completed the employer’s FMLA form, there was no support for the notion that he provided adequate notice of an intent to take FMLA leave.

FMLA retaliation. The employee also brought a claim for FMLA retaliation. The employee claimed that the employer retaliated against him by terminating his employment weeks after his request for FMLA related to his anxiety. To establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, the employee had to show that “(1) [he] was engaged in an activity protected by the FMLA; (2) the employer knew that [he] was exercising [his] rights under the FMLA; (3) after learning of the employee’s exercise of FMLA rights, the employer took an employment action adverse to [him]; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected FMLA activity and the adverse employment action.”

The employer argued that the employee’s FMLA retaliation claim fails because he cannot establish that he was engaged in an activity protected by the FMLA and he cannot establish that its reasons for terminating him were pretext.

Here, the employee only requested information about the process of requesting FMLA leave. There is no evidence that he provided any notice, verbally, written or otherwise, that he intended to take FMLA leave due to anxiety. The request for an FMLA request form does not rise to the level of engaging in protected activity under FMLA. Thus, the employee had not demonstrated that he provided the employer with a proper request for FMLA leave.

Accordingly, the court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment against the employee’s FMLA claims.

The case is No. 19-12053.

Judge: Hood, D.

Attorneys: Rejanae Thurman (Thurman Legal Center) and Carla D. Aikens (Carla D. Aikens, PC) for Daniel Paris. Christopher R. Mikula (Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart) for MacAllister Machinery Co., Inc. dba Michigan CAT.

Companies: MacAllister Machinery Co., Inc.; Michigan CAT

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discharge Retaliation Labor UnionsMembers MichiganNews