Plaintiff's FMLA inference claim failed where she asserted that she was improperly placed on FMLA leave.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her former employer alleging, among other things, that it interfered with her rights under the FMLA and retaliated against her. After the employer filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff abandoned her retaliation claim pursuant to the FMLA. The court, however, determined that the plaintiff's FMLA interference claim failed as a matter of law. In so holding, the court noted that plaintiff's amended complaint averred that she did not actually need FMLA at the time and that she was only alerting her employer to the fact that she may need some leave in the future. Specifically, the court noted that the plaintiff could not successfully plead that she was entitled to FMLA leave, which was required under the statute. Indeed, the court stated that "[i]n order to be eligible for FMLA leave due to a serious health condition, an employee must have 'a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee'" and by "pleading that she was fully capable of working at the time she was placed on alleged involuntary leave, she essentially admitted that she was not at that time entitled to FMLA leave."

Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012