Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—N.D. Tex.: Employee fired upon return from FMLA-approved leave gets suit tossed since no FMLA entitlement, (Apr 8, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

By her own admissions she was able perform her job duties despite her mental health, and there was no evidence that her mental health caused her any period of incapacity.

A university employee who was terminated from her job after she returned from FMLA-approved leave due to alleged mental health issues won’t get a trial on her FMLA interference and retaliation claims since she could not demonstrate that she suffered from a “serious health condition.” Granting summary judgment against her claims, the court found that there was no indication that she was ever incapacitated, and she herself testified she was able to drive, care for herself, leave her house, go on walks, and maintain normal social behavior. Further, she admitted that she was always able to perform her job duties. She was also not entitled to FMLA protection by virtue of equitable estoppel since she did not detrimentally rely on the university’s representations about her FMLA coverage (Holland v. Texas Christian University, No. 4:24-CV-00289-O (N.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2025)).

EEO investigator. The employee began working for Texas Christian University in 2002. During the relevant time period she worked as an investigator in the university’s Office of Institutional Equity (OIE), which was created in 2020 to help ensure a learning and working environment free from all forms of harassment and discrimination. Her responsibilities included investigating allegations of harassment, discrimination, sexual misconduct, and retaliation.

Therapist’s note. On February 16, 2023, she told her supervisor planned to see her therapist regarding her mental state. The next day, she virtually met with him and “broke down in her session.” He advised her to take the rest of the day off from work and provided her with a doctor’s note that she slid under her supervisor’s door before leaving work early. The note stated: “Please excuse [the employee] during the time from 2/17/23 until further notice. She is currently in my care undergoing mental health evaluation.”

FMLA leave. The supervisor claimed she was supportive of the employee’s taking time off and requested that a leave administrator offer her assistance. On February 21, she requested FMLA leave related to her mental health retroactive to February 17, which the university approved. She did not receive inpatient care during her leave and admittedly continued her daily activities, such as driving, caring for herself, leaving her house, and going on walks. She also testified that while she was on leave, “my mental health didn’t stop me from doing the actual job,” and that she would have taken time off from work even if the university denied her FMLA leave request.

Terminated. She took the full period of leave she requested and returned to work on May 2 without restrictions. That same day, however, her supervisor and the university’s HR leader met with her and advised her that she was being terminated. Though they allowed her to retire in June she requested to retire effective immediately.

Not entitled to FMLA leave. The court agreed with the university that the employee’s FMLA claims failed as a matter of law because she was not entitled to FMLA leave. Though she claimed that she suffered from a “serious health condition” which arose out of her investigative work for the university, the Fifth Circuit has held that a “serious health condition” as defined under the FMLA is “an illness, injury, impairment or physical condition that involves 1) inpatient care or 2) continuing treatment by a health care provider.” Neither of those elements were present here.

In addition to explicitly denying she received inpatient care for her mental health issues, she also could not show that she received continuing treatment that encompassed “1) a period of incapacity of more than three consecutive days; 2) any period of incapacity due to pregnancy or prenatal care; or 3) any period of incapacity or treatment for such incapacity due to a chronic serious health condition.”

Not “incapacitated.” Significantly, the FMLA regulations provide that “[t]he term incapacity means inability to work, attend school or perform other regular daily activities due to the serious health condition, treatment therefore, or recovery therefrom.” And here, there was no indication that she was incapacitated during the leave period. Rather, she testified she was able to drive, care for herself, leave her house, go on walks, and maintain normal social behavior. She also admitted that she was able to perform her job duties despite her alleged mental health issues. Her therapist also confirmed that she “never was not able to do her job.” Though the therapist also testified that she was “operating on fumes” and was “not healthy,” she did not point to any evidence showing how this led to her inpatient care or any period of incapacity.

In sum, by her own admissions she was able perform her job duties despite her mental health, and there was no evidence that her mental health caused her any period of incapacity. While she may have felt ill and had to leave work, “this is not evidence of the inability to work as required by the FMLA,” emphasized the court. Thus, because she did not meet the requirements for having a serious health condition, she was not eligible for FMLA leave as a matter of law.

No detrimental reliance. The university also alleged that the employee was not entitled to FMLA protection by virtue of equitable estoppel since the employee did not detrimentally rely on its representations about her FMLA coverage. The court agreed that the doctrine of equitable estoppel could not salvage her claims since the employee did not rely on the university’s representation to her detriment. In fact, she “explicitly disclaimed detrimental reliance” by testifying in her deposition that she had enough vacation and sick time to take time off from work regardless of whether the university approved her leave.

The case is No. 4:24-CV-00289-O.

Judge: O’Connor, R.

Attorneys: W. D. Masterson (Kilgore & Kilgore) for Leigh Holland. Eva W Turner (Ogletree Deakins) for Texas Christian University.

Companies: Texas Christian University

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discharge Retaliation TexasNews