FMLA Interference After the Employee Used Intermittent Leave
An experienced healthcare worker was disciplined for using approved intermittent FMLA leave and the case settled for more than $80,000 before a lawsuit was filed.
Docket
Jurisdiction
Nevada
Client
Employee
Matter
FMLA interference & retaliation
Duration
Under two months
Status
Settled
Case summary
Our client, a health care worker, was entitled to take medical leave a few hours at a time. Rather than accommodate that, the employer disciplined the client and applied pressure to use full days off that were not needed. Milan Chatterjee documented the violations, and the case settled for over $80,000 in under two months, without a lawsuit.
On this page
01 · Situation
Our client was a health care worker with a strong, well-regarded record. In years with the same employer the client had never been disciplined, and the most recent review was the highest yet.
That changed once the client began taking legally protected medical leave. The certification allowed leave in short, partial-day blocks: a couple of hours for an appointment, then back to work. The supervisor, however, never arranged the coverage needed before the client stepped away from patients, leaving the client to sort out that coverage repeatedly on the morning of each appointment. Then, the day after the client returned from a longer stretch of leave, a manager approached them in a public part of the workplace and announced, in front of coworkers, that the leave had been “terminated.” It had not.
The discipline began soon after. Only weeks after that strong review, the employer issued a written warning, and the attendance it relied on reached back into the very weeks the client had been on protected leave. A second warning followed, leaving the client one step from termination. When the client raised a complaint and met with HR, the HR director said, in a meeting the client was lawfully allowed to record, that the client should be taking a full day off, or unpaid time, rather than the partial-day leave the certification clearly allowed. That is when the client came to Milan Chatterjee.
02. The legal challenge
At its core, this was a case of FMLA interference. The law allows eligible employees to take protected leave in small increments, as little as an hour at a time when the medical need requires it, and it prohibits an employer from holding that leave against an employee in disciplinary decisions. In this part of the country, an employee need not disprove the employer’s stated reasons or show they were a pretext. The client need only show that the protected leave was one of the factors behind the discipline.
Here, every piece of evidence pointed in the same direction. The employer’s own HR director had been recorded telling our client that a partial-day certification did not permit hours in the middle of the day, and directing the client to take a full day off or go unpaid instead. That was pressure to give up a federal right, and it was directly at odds with both the leave administrator’s written approvals and the company’s own handbook. The warnings came just after a glowing review and relied on days the client had spent on protected leave. And the manager who had disciplined the client for a lapse in protective equipment was later seen doing exactly the same thing, without any consequence. Our task was to assemble this record the recording, the timing, and the double standard into a case the employer would not want to defend, and to do so before any suit was filed.
What was at stake
For our client, none of this was abstract. The client was still employed, but one more alleged misstep could cost them the job, and two warnings already sat in the file. Livelihood, record, and health were all at risk, and the stress had led the client to seek treatment for work-related anxiety. The employer’s exposure was serious as well: FMLA violations can carry back pay, an equal amount again in liquidated damages, and the employee’s attorney’s fees. Both sides had reason to resolve the matter.
03. Our approach
How we defended the claims, shifted the leverage, and moved the case toward a resolution that let our client keep their business, in three steps.
Anchor the claim in what the leave rules actually say
We built the demand around the specific rules the employer had ignored. Federal law is explicit that intermittent leave may be taken in small increments, not only in full days, and that an employer may not use protected leave against an employee in discipline. We showed, point by point, that the certification and the leave administrator’s approvals authorized precisely the partial-day absences the client had taken, that the company’s own handbook said the same, and that HR’s demand for full or unpaid days contradicted all three. This was not a close question of interpretation; the employer’s own documents resolved it.
Line up the recording, the timing, and the double standard
From there, the facts did the work, and we organized them so the pattern was clear. A lawful recording captured the HR director pressing our client to give up the partial-day leave. The sequence spoke for itself: a review that exceeded earlier ones, then a warning based on days spent on protected leave, then a final warning, then the HR complaint and the recorded meeting, all within a matter of days. And the manager who had written the client up for a protective-equipment lapse had committed the same lapse, without consequence a clear and direct double standard. Taken together, the evidence left little room for a credible defense.
Make the demand and settle it between counsel
With the record assembled, we sent a detailed demand letter setting out the claims, the governing law, and the evidence, and we opened negotiations directly with the employer’s counsel. Because the demand was concrete and well-supported, and because the recording and the timing were difficult to answer, the discussion turned quickly toward settlement. We resolved the matter without ever filing suit, sparing our client the years, the expense, and the strain that litigation would have added while they remained employed and in treatment.
04. The outcome
The case settled for over $80,000, negotiated directly between counsel within two months of the demand letter and without a complaint ever being filed. For a client who had come to us one step from losing their job, the speed was its own relief: a situation that had been deteriorating for months was resolved in a matter of weeks.
The result reflected the strength of the case. The interference was captured on a lawful recording, the discipline aligned too closely with the protected leave to be coincidental, and the manager who disciplined the client had gone unpunished for identical conduct. Against that exposure lost pay, a potential doubling of damages, and responsibility for the client’s legal fees an early settlement was the sensible course for the employer.
Just as important, it allowed the client to move forward. Rather than spend a year or more in litigation against their own employer while the stress mounted, the client reached a resolution that took the claims seriously and made it possible to turn attention back to work and health.
05. Key takeaways
Know Your Intermittent Leave Rights
Intermittent FMLA leave can be taken in partial days; you do not have to use a full day for a two-hour appointment. If an employer requires you to take a full day, or unpaid time, instead of the partial-day leave your certification allows, that may be interference with your rights rather than a policy you are obligated to follow.
Watch for Discipline After Protected Leave
Be cautious about discipline that appears soon after you begin using protected leave. In this part of the country, you need not prove the employer’s stated reason was false, only that your leave was one of the factors behind the decision. Close timing is among the strongest evidence of that.
Preserve the Evidence
Documentation is what wins these cases. A clean record, contemporaneous evidence, a lawful recording, and a clear example of the same rule being applied one way to you and another way to someone else can make an FMLA claim very difficult to defend, often enough to settle it before a lawsuit is filed.
06. FAQ
Important Disclaimers
Attorney Advertising. This case study describes a past legal matter handled by Milan Chatterjee. Prior results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. Every case is unique and depends on its specific facts, applicable law, and jurisdiction.
Client Confidentiality. This case study is published fully anonymized. Identifying details have been omitted or generalized, and the settlement amount is stated as a conservative rounded-down figure. No attorney-client privileged information is disclosed. Publication should occur only after confirming that the executed settlement agreement permits this description.
Not Legal Advice. The information here is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this page, contacting the firm, or submitting a form does not create an attorney-client relationship. An attorney-client relationship is formed only through a signed engagement agreement.
Jurisdiction. Milan Chatterjee is licensed to practice law in Nevada and California. Services outside these jurisdictions are provided only in association with locally admitted counsel where required by law.
Related practice areas
Facing a non-compete or a lawsuit from a former employer?
