Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—W.D. Ky.: Officer not entitled to FMLA leave for son’s illnesses but ADA associational discrimination claim advances, (Jun 17, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The officer feared his young son may have contracted histiocytosis X, the same autoimmune disease he suffered from and that caused him to develop a brain tumor as a child.

Granting summary judgment to a county metropolitan government on the FMLA interference claim of an officer who resigned in lieu of termination after missing several required trainings—in part due to the illness of his son whom he believed to be at high risk for an autoimmune disease—a federal court in Kentucky found that he failed to show his son had a serious health condition, that he provided sufficient notice of his intent to take leave, or that he was denied any benefits to which he was entitled. The court, however, allowed his ADA associational discrimination claim to advance to trial (Thompson v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government, No. 3:24-cv-00243-RGJ-CHL (W.D. Ky. June 16, 2026)).

Son’s health issues. Five years after he began working for the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD), the officer transferred to the traffic unit. He claimed that during his interview to join the unit, he disclosed that he might need to take time off to care for his young son who had ongoing health problems. The child suffered from repeated ear infections, vomiting and diarrhea, and respiratory issues and the officer feared he might have contracted the same autoimmune disease from which he suffered—histiocytosis X—and which had caused him to develop a brain tumor as a child.

Training courses. As a result of his transfer, the officer had to complete three 80-hour crash investigation training courses in another city. During the first course, he missed a full day due to a stomach bug and fever. He notified his instructor of his absence but did not notify his supervisor as required by LMPD policy. During the third course, he missed a partial day when he left class early to meet a roofer regarding storm damage to his house. Once again, he did not notify his supervisor about his departure.

Investigation. Two days later, he again missed a full day of class when he stayed home on March 10 to take care of his sick son. After the trainer alerted the officer’s supervisor to his absence, the supervisor initiated an investigation that revealed the officer had signed the attendance record for the March 10 class several days later. It also revealed that he had reported 1.5 hours of overtime for the day he left early and that his hours in the LMPD’s time keeping tool incorrectly reflected that he worked full days on the days of his absences. The employee admitted the hours were incorrect, explaining: “I never put in for a sick day. I never asked for a sick day. It’s just too much going on in my life right now.”

Although the officer contended that personal stressors related to his son’s poor health caused him to fail to notify his supervisor of his March 10 absence, the chief notified him of the department’s intent to terminate him for misreporting overtime, conduct unbecoming, and untruthfulness. He resigned in lieu of termination and then sued the department and metropolitan government under the FMLA and the ADA.

Leave entitlement. In support of his FMLA interference claim, the officer first argued that he was entitled to take FMLA leave because he believed his son might have had COVID and because of his documented history of medical issues. The FMLA, observed the court, allows an employee to take leave to care for a child suffering from an illness that involves continuing treatment by a healthcare provider and DOL regulations define this to include, among other things, a chronic condition.

The officer argued that even though his son tested negative for COVID, there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether this was an FMLA qualifying event given his son’s history of illness. He pointed to his son’s medical records showing he periodically visited the pediatrician between June 2021 and November 2023 for vomiting and diarrhea, congestion, eye swelling and drainage, allergies, respiratory issues, and ear infections. He also testified that his son was at high risk for developing histiocytosis X.

But while the evidence showed his son suffered bouts of short-term ailments such as viral respiratory infections, colds, coughs, congestion, diarrhea, vomiting, and allergies, he had not been diagnosed with any chronic conditions, never had COVID, and never stayed overnight in a hospital for an illness. His son’s high risk for histiocytosis X, said the court, “does not turn these periodic ailments into chronic conditions, particularly given that he ‘has not tested positive for’” the autoimmune disease. Thus, the court found no genuine dispute his son had a “continuous health condition involving continuing treatment” that would qualify him for FMLA leave.

Notice. Even had he been able to establish a genuine fact dispute, he failed to provide sufficient notice of his intent to take intermittent leave. Here, said the court, there was some evidence he provided initial notice to his supervisors of a need to take FMLA qualifying leave, including telling his traffic unit interviewers his son “was having ongoing respiratory issues, ear infections, and other health problems” and that he may need to take days off to care for him and his claim he told his supervisor multiple times about his son’s frequent sicknesses, including his high risk for histiocytosis X, and his concerns about his inability to function normally.

But even if this constituted notice, said the court, he failed to advise his supervisor as soon as practicable of the date of the leave, March 10, when it arose. Indeed, he did not inform his supervisor of that intent until several days later. He also failed to comply with LMPD’s policy for requesting leave, which required him to call his supervisor at least one hour before the beginning of his shift. As a result, the court found no genuine dispute of fact with respect to whether he provided sufficient notice of his intent to take leave.

Benefits denial. Noting finally that the officer had to show he was denied benefits or rights to which he was entitled under the FMLA, the court pointed out that the chief recommended his termination for non-FMLA related reasons, including reporting overtime for a day he did not work a full shift, failing to indicate his three absences in the department’s timekeeping program, being absent from work on days that did not involve FMLA-qualifying events, and signing his initials on the sign-in sheet for the March 10 class despite being absent. While the March 10 absence contributed to his proposed termination, he was still not denied a benefit to which he was entitled given that he failed to establish he was entitled to FMLA leave for his son’s illness.

Based on all these reasons, the court granted summary judgment against his FMLA interference claim.

ADA associational discrimination. Though the officer also asserted a claim for associational discrimination in violation of the ADA, instead of addressing this claim, the employer moved for summary judgment on a failure-to-accommodate claim. Rejecting its argument that the nature of the officer’s claims “have been, and remain, unclear,” the court found he clearly alleged he was “discriminated against and otherwise excluded from and denied equal jobs or benefits because of the known disability of his son with whom [he] is known to have a relationship or association.”

Even though the employer’s failure to challenge the associational discrimination claim in its motion for summary judgment constituted waiver, the court found it also failed to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the claim. It argued only that the officer’s son did not have a record of his impairment but there are other ways to establish a disability, said the court.

And here, the officer argued that his son had physical impairments that substantially limited his daily activities and presented evidence his son had frequent bouts of illness that prevented him from sleeping and required him to avoid public spaces. Finding that he responded to the department’s narrow argument with specific facts that showed a genuine issue for trial, the court denied summary judgment on this claim.

The case is No. 3:24-cv-00243-RGJ-CHL.

Judge: Jennings, R.

Attorneys: Andrew C. Weeks (Legal Justice at Work) for Dillon Thompson. James Eugene McKiernan, III, Jefferson County Attorney Office, for Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government dba Louisville Metro Police Department.

Cases: EmployeeLeave DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge KentuckyNews