Sometimes a routine overtime dispute turns into an FMLA problem because no one stops to ask the right questions. A new Eleventh Circuit decision shows how easily that can happen.
TL;DR: An employee told supervisors that his pregnant spouse’s condition was high risk, that she could not drive, and that he needed to get home after his shift to care for her. He twice refused overtime for this reason. No one informed him of his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). The Eleventh Circuit held that a jury could find he was entitled to intermittent FMLA leave, that the employer failed to provide required notices, and that this failure may have led to his termination. The FMLA interference claim survives.
A high-risk pregnancy and two conflicts over overtime
The employee worked an overnight freight-handling shift with required overtime when trailers remained. Early in the year, he told management his spouse was pregnant. When he asked about FMLA leave, his manager told him he was “moving too fast” and should not worry about leave until after the baby arrived.
By June, the pregnancy had become high-risk. His spouse’s doctor said she could not work or drive and needed his help “as much as possible.” He told supervisors there would be times he needed to leave at the end of his shift or miss work to care for her. According to the opinion, no one informed him of his FMLA rights.
Two key incidents followed within a week of each other.
June 25
He finished his assignments and tried to leave to check on his spouse and get her to an appointment. Management told him he had to stay for overtime. He explained that her condition was worsening. He left anyway, and the incident was documented as refusing to unload another trailer.
July 1
During his shift, his spouse texted him updates about pain and expressed concern that something was wrong. When his scheduled shift ended, he clocked out and walked toward the exit. The supervisor stopped him, said leaving would be considered job abandonment, and told him to return to the office. He explained he needed to get home due to her health complications and left. The next day, management recommended termination.
Hours later, on July 2, doctors determined the pregnancy was so dangerous that the baby had to be delivered immediately, two and a half months early. He then took paid parental leave from July 6 to 17.
On July 20, he submitted FMLA paperwork for additional leave, which the company later approved. A couple of days after receiving the paperwork, the employee relations advisor got the FMLA approval email and terminated him that same day.
Why the interference claim survives
1. His statements were enough to trigger FMLA duties
He did not need to mention the statute by name. A high-risk pregnancy, inability to drive, and real-time health updates provided enough information for a reasonable employer to recognize that leave might be FMLA-qualifying.
2. FMLA notices must be provided within five business days
Once an employer has enough information to think leave may qualify, it must evaluate and provide eligibility and rights notices. Evidence indicated no one did.
3. The lack of notice may have caused the firing
A jury could conclude he refused overtime only because he did not know intermittent FMLA leave was an option.
4. The employer’s stated reason did not eliminate the factual dispute
Although the termination was labeled “job abandonment,” internal documents emphasized refusal to work overtime. That made summary judgment improper.
The retaliation and ADA associational discrimination claims failed for lack of causation.
What employers should take from this
• Treat statements about leaving work that are tied to a family member’s medical complications as potential FMLA triggers.
• Train supervisors to escalate medical or caretaking concerns to HR.
• Provide FMLA notices when the facts suggest eligibility.
• Confirm FMLA compliance before disciplining or terminating for overtime or attendance issues involving family medical needs.
FMLA problems often start long before the paperwork does. A quick handoff to HR or a few clarifying questions can prevent a simple attendance issue from turning into a federal lawsuit. When medical complications enter the conversation, employers should slow down, ask questions, and get the process right.