Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—E.D. Mich.: Fired employee, whose leave was conditioned on temporary return, wins summary judgment on interference claim, (Apr 21, 2026)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

Requiring an employee to give up the statutory right to reinstatement violates the FMLA.

Granting a fired employee’s motion for summary judgment on her FMLA interference claim, a federal district court in Michigan ruled the undisputed direct evidence established interference as a matter of law. The employer misinformed the employee that she was not eligible for FMLA leave and then explicitly conditioned her ability to take leave on her agreement to return only on a temporary basis to train her replacement. The court, however, denied her motion for summary judgment on her FMLA retaliation claim because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the company had knowledge she was exercising her FMLA rights and whether there was a causal connection between her protected activity and her termination (Stanley v. Nagel Paper, Inc. dba Abzac US, No. 24-cv-10094 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 17, 2026)).

The employee, who suffers from anxiety, bipolar disorder, and depression, worked for Abzac-related entities, intermittently, since 2003. Abzac US rehired her in October 2020.

Sought treatment, leave. On January 25, 2022, she visited a psychiatrist to seek treatment for her conditions. The next day, she informed her plant manager that she needed to take time off to attend inpatient therapy. In late January, the manager relayed this information to the HR manager. The HR manager explored various leave options, including FMLA leave, but after evaluating her request under the FMLA criteria, she incorrectly concluded she was ineligible. The parties have since stipulated she was eligible for FMLA leave when she initially requested time off.

Conditions of leave. The HR manager allowed the employee to take a four-week leave of absence and spoke to her about the length and terms of her approved leave. The HR manager verbally informed her that her leave was conditioned on her agreement to only return on a temporary basis to train her replacement. The reason for her request and the leave period were documented in a leave of absence approval letter. The extra condition related to her temporary employment was not mentioned in the letter.

Extended leave. The employee did not return to work at the end of her four-week period. The HR manager agreed to extend the leave by five weeks, making her return date approximately April 19. The HR manager attempted to contact the employee on several occasions during the extended leave period, but the employee did not return any of the calls. The HR manager left at least three voicemail messages that discussed a possible resignation letter. The employee claimed she had no reason to return the calls because she did not intend to resign.

Termination, complaint. Citing the employee’s lack of communication, the HR manager terminated her employment on April 24, 2022. Thereafter, the employee filed FMLA interference and retaliation claims against Abzac. She subsequently filed this motion for summary judgment on both claims.

Interference. Granting the employee’s motion for summary judgment on her FMLA interference claim, the court found the undisputed direct evidence established interference as a matter of law. The record showed that Abzac misinformed the employee that she was not eligible for FMLA leave and then explicitly conditioned her ability to take a leave of absence on her agreement to return only on a temporary basis. These statements directly deny and restrain rights guaranteed by the FMLA, the court found.

Eligibility mistake. The record showed, and Abzac did not dispute, that its HR manager evaluated the employee’s request under FMLA criteria and concluded that she did not quality. It also was undisputed that the HR manager communicated this conclusion and instead allowed her to take a leave of absence. “Misinforming [p]laintiff of her eligibility, regardless of [the HR manager’s] intent, and submitting a shortened non-FMLA leave served as interference because it effectively denied [p]laintiff benefits to which she was entitled,” the court wrote. Under Sixth Circuit precedent, the court noted, an employer’s intent is irrelevant. The question is simply whether the employer’s actions interfered with, restrained, or denied the exercise of FMLA rights.

Reinstatement. The court also found Abzac interfered with the employee’s FMLA rights via the HR manager telling her that her leave was conditioned upon her only returning on a temporary basis to train her replacement. This communication, in and of itself, was direct evidence of FMLA interference, the court found. Requiring an employee to give up the statutory right to reinstatement in order to take leave violates the FMLA because it would discourage employees from taking such leave. Such a condition also undermines the FMLA’s guarantee of reinstatement to the same or an equivalent position. Employers may not condition an employee’s leave on surrendering that right, the court said.

Retaliation. Turning to the employee’s FMLA retaliation claim, the court found there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment. The two issues were whether Abzac had knowledge that the employee was exercising her FMLA rights and whether there was a causal connection between her protected activity and her termination.

Knowledge dispute. The court explained that because retaliation turns on whether an employer acted adversely because an employee exercised FMLA rights, the employer must have actually understood that the employee was invoking FMLA protections specifically, not merely requesting leave in general. “Indeed, an employer cannot retaliate against protected activity it did not know was occurring,” the court wrote.

Here, the employee argued Abzac knew she was exercising her FMLA rights because she “discussed the need for inpatient psychiatric treatment.” Conversely, Abzac maintained that it was not aware she was exercising her rights under the FMLA. As she didn’t request FMLA when she approached her plant manager, the HR manager was under the impression that she was ineligible for FMLA leave, and the employee’s written leave of absence letter classified her leave as “non-FMLA.”

The court found the parties’ competing evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding Abzac’s knowledge. Although the employee’s evidence could support a finding that Abzac knew that she needed a leave of absence to address mental health concerns generally, a reasonable jury could also conclude that Abzac lacked the specific awareness required for an FMLA retaliation claim. Accordingly, it was best for a jury to determine this issue, the court said.

Causation. Likewise, the court found genuine issues of material fact existed regarding causation, and a jury could find that Abzac terminated the employee for reasons unrelated to her protected activity. The employee pointed to several pieces of evidence to suggest that her protected activity motivated her termination, including emails that indicated she could only return on a temporary basis, and the HR manager’s voicemail messages that mentioned a resignation letter.

Abzac argued it terminated her because she failed to return the HR manager’s phone calls. It also asserted that it believed she wanted to resign to address her mental health concerns and that its voicemail messages reflected that understanding rather than any retaliatory intent.

A reasonable jury, the court said, could credit this explanation and find that Abzac acted based on its understanding that the employee intended to resign and failed to communicate she planned to return, not because she exercised FMLA rights. Because the employee’s evidence supported one inference and Abzac’s supported another, the court denied the employee’s motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim.

The case is No. 24-cv-10094.

Judge: Parker, L.

Attorneys: Joseph F. Lucas (Skupin & Lucas) for Blanche Stanley. Courtney L. Nichols (Plunkett Cooney) for Nagle Paper Inc. dba Abzac, US.

Companies: Nagle Paper Inc. dba Abzac, US

Cases: EmployeeLeave Retaliation Discharge MichiganNews