Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—W.D. Tenn.: Social studies teacher, fired after requesting family medical leave, advances FMLA claims, (Jun 13, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

“He was about halfway into his fourth year of teaching at FPA when Plaintiff began missing work often.”

A sixth-grade social studies teacher for Freedom Preparatory Academy, Inc., fired after requesting FMLA leave following absences to care for himself and his daughters, one of whom has a disability, may proceed to trial on his FMLA interference and retaliation claims, a federal district court found. Although the teacher’s associational disability discrimination claims are time-barred, there are questions of fact about whether FPA “knew that [Plaintiff] was exercising”—or at least inquiring about how to exercise—“[his] rights under the FMLA,” whether he gave proper notice under 29 C.F.R. § 825.301, and whether FPA’s allegedly nondiscriminatory reason for his discharge—his non-protected absences—was pretextual (Futch v. Freedom Preparatory Academy, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02798-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn. Jun. 12, 2025)).

Two daughters. The plaintiff, according to the court, has two daughters. He has sole custody of one and shares custody of the other, who has disabling health conditions, with his ex-wife. The daughter with disabilities lived with him “off and on.”

Sixth-grade social studies. He has a master’s degree in education and began working at Freedom Preparatory Academy, Inc. (FPA) as a sixth-grade social studies teacher in July 2018.

Absences. He was about halfway into his fourth year of teaching at FPA when he began missing work often. From October 2021 to February 2022, he was repeatedly absent for his own physical and mental health conditions and to care for one or both daughters.

FMLA leave request. On January 26, he emailed the head of school to tell her that he needed to “relinquish his title as Grade Chair. Currently there are several factors that are preventing me from being physically in the building. I will request leave under FMLA. If you can assist me in any way with the process, it would be appreciated.”

That same day, he also emailed the Director of Special Projects at FPA. He stated, “I would like to request FMLA leave as well as any information on the process and requirements.” Both officials connected him with FPA’s HR director.

Internal management conversations. That evening, the school head also contacted the HR director for “support” and to “give more details on what[’]s happening with” the teacher. Two days later, on January 28, the HR director told the school head that she “attempted to connect with [Plaintiff] to explain that you cannot request FMLA Leave but it is a period that is applied for and approved in conjunction with a medical need by a certified doctor.” And then the HR director “recommend[ed],” based on her conversation with the school head, “that you try and coordinate with him to return to the building to meet and at that time collect his devices and end his employment with FPA.”

The school head thus contacted the teacher on February 1 to ask him to come in for a meeting. He stated that he could not meet in person but that he could talk by phone, and they agreed to a call the next morning.

Request for additional information about FMLA. In the meantime, on February 1, the teacher emailed the HR director to ask if there was “any additional information that [she] could share regarding the FMLA request and process” because he had “yet to receive any information.” She stated that the HR business partner assigned to FPA would contact him. And that same afternoon, an HR business partner responded to his inquiry, explaining that she “tried calling... multiple times with no answer” and that he needed to submit “the attached FMLA form that should be filled out by a certified doctor.” She also requested his “expected return date from [his] doctor’s office.” The teacher responded the next morning and confirmed that he would “consult with [his] provider” but did not provide a timeline on when he would return the requested form.

Discharge. When the teacher later took the scheduled call with the school head, she fired him, stating that she “needed someone who was going to be available to be at work.” He later received a final termination letter, dated February 2, 2022.

Lawsuit. The teacher filed an EEOC charge for employment discrimination in December 2022. After receiving his right to sue letter, he brought suit in federal district court on December 21, 2023. He alleged interference and retaliation under the FMLA and associational discrimination under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.

FPA moved for summary judgment against each of his claims.

FMLA interference with inquiry or notice. First, the court found that a reasonable jury could find that FPA interfered with the teacher’s ability to find out about his rights or to give notice under the FMLA, making summary judgment on this claim improper. He expressly asked for information about the FMLA process three separate times, and the FMLA does not allow an employer to prevent its employee from giving notice under 29 C.F.R. § 825.301 by firing him and then use his failure to give notice as its defense, the court observed. “[G]iven Plaintiff’s repeated requests to find out how to obtain FMLA leave, there remain questions of fact about whether FPA fired him because of these questions and before he had a chance to comply with the regulatory notice requirements.”

Notice under FMLA. A reasonable jury could also find that the teacher gave the notice required under 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(b), concluded the court. He sent three emails to FPA expressly citing the FMLA, and according to the regulations, verbal notice may be enough. Viewing his emails, testimony, and FPA’s responses to him as a whole and in the light most favorable to him, the court concluded that there was a question of fact as to whether he gave proper notice.

FMLA retaliation. The teacher’s FMLA retaliation claim also survived the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The timing between his request for FMLA leave and his termination provided evidence of retaliation, and though the employer argued that it fired him for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason—his non-protected absences—the school head’s comment to him about “need[ing] someone who was going to be available to be at work,” along with his leave history, presented a fact question as to the employer’s true motive.

ADA and Rehab Act claims. Finally, his ADA and Rehab Act claims were time-barred. He filed his EEOC charge 314 days after his allegedly-discriminatory termination—which was two weeks late for purposes of the ADA charge.

He also had not shown—and likely cannot show, according to the court—that his Rehab Act claim “arises under” a post-1990 Act of Congress. As a result, Tennessee’s one-year personal injury statute of limitations applied to his claim, and because the allegedly discriminatory termination of which he complained took place on February 2, 2022, he had through February 2, 2023, to sue. Because he did not file suit until December 21, 2023, well outside the statutory period, this claim was also time-barred.

The case is No. 2:23-cv-02798-TLP-atc.

Judge: Parker, T.

Attorneys: Brandon Glennis Hall (The Employment & Consumer Law Group) for Antonio Futch. Lisa A. Krupicka (Burch Porter & Johnson) for Freedom Preparatory Academy, Inc.

Companies: Freedom Preparatory Academy, Inc.

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discharge DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Procedure TennesseeNews