A Half-Hour Absence. Seven Years of FMLA Fallout.

She left work early during her pregnancy—with her supervisor’s okay. Seven years later, the court said she may have had every legal right to do so.

---

TL;DR: The Seventh Circuit revived an FMLA interference claim brought by a former state employee who was fired after using the wrong type of paid leave to cover 30 minutes of pregnancy-related severe morning sickness. The court found genuine factual disputes and sent the case back for trial.
Read the full decision here →

---

Fired over 30 minutes of “wrong” leave during pregnancy? Not so fast.

In May 2017, a pregnant employee left work halfway through her shift due to severe morning sickness. Her supervisor approved the departure and reminded her to complete the necessary paperwork.

She later recorded four hours of holiday time for the absence—but she only had 3.5 hours available. At the time, her FMLA request was still pending. Even though the employer later retroactively approved FMLA leave starting May 4, they treated that 30-minute gap as an unauthorized absence, triggering termination under a strict 12-point attendance system.

Seven years and one federal appeal later, the Seventh Circuit reversed.

What the court said about pregnancy, policy, and paperwork

On May 14, 2025, the court held:

• Severe morning sickness is protected under the FMLA. The court rejected the employer’s claim that morning sickness was excluded by the medical certification. It emphasized that federal regulations—29 C.F.R. § 825.115(f)—explicitly cover severe morning sickness, even if the employee does not visit a doctor during the absence.
• The employer was already on notice. Management knew the employee was pregnant and had missed prior shifts for morning sickness—information that had prompted issuance of the FMLA paperwork in the first place. As the court noted, “[A] reasonable jury could find that [the employer] knew that [the employee] would need intermittent leave for morning sickness… when it approved the leave.”
• Incomplete certification? That’s on the employer to fix. The court found that the employer could not rely on vague language in the certification without seeking clarification. “[T]he employer shall state in writing what additional information is necessary… and shall give the employee seven calendar days to cure the deficiency.” (29 C.F.R. § 825.305(c)).
• Notice doesn’t require magic words. The employee said she needed to leave work early due to pregnancy-related illness and wanted to use FMLA leave. Her supervisor—who knew she was pregnant—approved the departure. The court concluded this was enough to raise a triable issue about whether she provided sufficient notice under 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(b).
• Discipline for “substitution” errors can still violate the FMLA. The employee tried to use four hours of holiday leave but only had 3.5 hours available. Even if that violated policy, the court said: “Nothing in § 825.207 permits an employer to discipline (let alone, terminate) an employee for failing to meet its paid leave substitution policy, particularly when, as here, the FMLA leave has been approved.”

What employers can learn from this

1. Rigid leave substitution policies can lead to litigation.
The FMLA lets employers require employees to use up paid time off before taking unpaid leave—but that doesn’t mean you can treat a coding mistake as grounds for termination.

2. Retroactive FMLA approval still protects employees.
If you retroactively approve leave, that includes the right not to be disciplined for absences during that period—even if the paperwork wasn’t perfect at the time.

3. Supervisors are your first line of compliance.
A supervisor who hears “I’m pregnant and feel sick” may have just received an FMLA notice—whether they realize it or not.

The bottom line

Pregnancy-related absences deserve thoughtful handling, not timecard traps that end careers.