Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—S.D. Ohio: Nurse loses FMLA suit over termination tied to timekeeping violations, (Jun 17, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

A long-term nurse could not show that her employer’s treatment of her leave requests caused any harm or that its decision to fire her for repeated clock-in violations masked unlawful retaliation.

A registered nurse could not proceed with FMLA interference and retaliation claims arising from her termination after an Ohio federal district court concluded that she suffered no harm from any alleged interference with her leave rights and could not show that her employer’s stated reason for firing her was a pretext for retaliation. The nurse worked for the employer for nearly 18 years and suffered from an autoimmune disorder affecting her eyes. After informing management in late 2021 that she would need periodic time off for intravenous chemotherapy treatments, she was investigated for alleged violations of the company’s timekeeping policy and ultimately discharged. The nurse contended that those events supported claims for FMLA interference and retaliation, but the court determined that the evidence could not support either claim and granted summary judgment to the employer (Valentine v. Riverside Radiology and Interventional Associates, No. 2:24-cv-357 (S.D. Ohio June 11, 2026)).

Leave request. The nurse began to experience symptoms of an autoimmune disorder around 2004 and underwent numerous eye-related procedures over the years. In 2018, she suffered a corneal ulceration related to the condition and used FMLA leave and additional leave before returning to work full time.

In October 2021, she informed her supervisor and a human resources manager that she would begin intravenous chemotherapy treatment for the condition. She advised management that she expected to need intermittent time away from work but was unsure whether she would use FMLA leave or paid time off.

The nurse testified that her supervisor expressed concern about staffing levels and stated that she did not know whether the requested arrangement could be accommodated because the department was short staffed. According to the nurse, both the supervisor and the human resources manager later told her that she was required to use paid time off before taking FMLA leave.

A handwritten supervisory note dated November 2021 referenced the nurse’s chemotherapy treatments and indicated that she was not using FMLA leave because she had been encouraged to use paid time off for treatment days. Despite those discussions, the nurse never formally applied for FMLA leave. Instead, she used paid time off to cover the absences associated with her chemotherapy treatments. The record showed that she had sufficient paid leave available and that her requests for time off were approved.

Timekeeping investigation. The events leading to the nurse’s termination began in November 2021 when another employee reported that she had arrived late for work. While processing payroll, the supervisor noticed that the nurse had clocked in before the start of her shift on the same day she was reportedly late.

That discrepancy prompted an examination of records generated by the employer’s mobile timekeeping application. According to the supervisor, the records showed 33 occasions on which the nurse clocked in from outside the office even though company policy prohibited employees from clocking in before physically arriving at work.

The supervisor presented the findings to the director of radiology services. After considering the information, the director decided to terminate the nurse’s employment. The nurse subsequently filed suit alleging FMLA interference, FMLA retaliation, and disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Ohio law. She later abandoned the disability-discrimination claim, leaving only the FMLA claims for resolution.

Interference claim. The court first addressed the interference claim, which was based on allegations that management improperly encouraged the nurse to use paid time off instead of FMLA leave and failed to provide adequate notice of her FMLA rights. Although the court assumed for purposes of its analysis that the discussions regarding paid leave could have constituted interference with FMLA rights, it found that the claim failed because the nurse could not demonstrate prejudice.

The court emphasized that an FMLA violation does not automatically create liability. Instead, an employee must show harm resulting from the alleged violation. Here, the nurse received all the time off she needed for chemotherapy treatments and did not miss any medical appointments because of work obligations. The court further noted that employers may require paid leave and unpaid FMLA leave to run concurrently. As a result, even if the nurse had elected to use FMLA leave, she still could have been required to use her available paid time off during the same period. Because the leave was granted and the outcome would have been the same, the court concluded that the nurse suffered no compensable injury.

Retaliation. The nurse argued that the timing of the investigation, combined with her previously spotless employment record, supported an inference that the timekeeping review was initiated because she sought leave related to her medical condition. She also pointed to the employer’s decision to investigate after a single incident involving tardiness and argued that management failed to seek her explanation before terminating her employment.

The court found that those circumstances were sufficient to satisfy the relatively modest burden required to establish a prima facie retaliation case. The nurse informed management about her anticipated need for leave in October and early November 2021, and management began examining her timekeeping records less than a month later. The opinion concluded that the temporal proximity, together with the other circumstances identified by the nurse, created an initial inference of causation.

That finding, however, merely shifted the burden to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the termination. The employer met that burden by citing findings that the nurse had clocked in from off-site locations 33 times in violation of company policy.

Pretext. The decisive issue became whether the nurse could demonstrate that the stated reason for her termination was merely a pretext for retaliation. The nurse advanced two principal arguments. First, she relied on a so-called “cat’s paw” theory, contending that the director who made the termination decision was improperly influenced by discriminatory animus on the part of her supervisor. Second, she argued that the employer did not honestly believe the reason it provided for her discharge.

The court rejected both arguments. With respect to the cat’s paw theory, the opinion emphasized testimony from the director that his decision was based solely on GPS information generated by the payroll system. The court found no evidence that the supervisor fabricated data, withheld material information, or otherwise manipulated the decision-making process. Rather, the record showed that the director independently reviewed the GPS information before deciding to terminate the nurse.

The court also concluded that the employer was entitled to rely on the honest-belief doctrine. Under that principle, an employee cannot establish pretext merely by disputing the underlying facts if the employer reasonably and honestly believed the basis for its decision. The nurse produced no significant evidence suggesting that management lacked an honest belief that she had violated the timekeeping policy. Although she criticized the quality of the investigation and argued that the GPS data could be flawed, the court found that those arguments did not undermine the employer’s reasonable reliance on the information available at the time.

The court likewise rejected criticism that the employer failed to seek the nurse’s explanation before firing her. It noted that she acknowledged knowing that company policy prohibited employees from clocking in before arriving at the office. Given the GPS records reflecting 33 off-site clock-ins, the court concluded that management reasonably viewed the conduct as a policy violation.

The court further observed that challenges to the GPS data depended largely on expert testimony developed during litigation rather than on information that would have been obvious to decision-makers when the termination occurred. Because the employer conducted what the court characterized as a reasonably informed investigation and honestly believed the nurse had repeatedly violated company policy, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find the stated reason for the termination to be a cover for retaliation.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-357.

Judge: Morrison, S.

Attorneys: Matthew Steven Brown (Matthew Brown Law, LLC) for Laurie Valentine. Janica Pierce Tucker (Taft Stettinius & Hollister) for Riverside Radiology and Interventional Associates, Inc. and Premier Imaging Ventures LLC dba LucidHealth.

Companies: Riverside Radiology and Interventional Associates, Inc.; Premier Imaging Ventures LLC dba LucidHealth

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discharge Retaliation OhioNews