The Essential Guide to Family & Medical Leave

92 | the essential guide to family and medical leave
Lessons from the
Real World
An employee was not entitled to FMLA leave to
be with his pregnant wife when she had not
suffered medical complications.
After his pregnant wife experienced false labor, Steve Aubuchon orally
requested leave from his job with Knauf Fiberglass to be with her. Aubuchon
did not inform Knauf that his wife had any medical complications or that she
was incapacitated. Knauf denied the request. Aubuchon nevertheless missed
several weeks of work, and Knauf fired him for unauthorized absence. He
filed a lawsuit claiming that Knauf violated the FMLA.
The court of appeals ruled in the company’s favor. Because Aubuchon
failed to provide notice to Knauf that his wife had experienced complications
during her pregnancy or that she was incapacitated, Aubuchon’s leave was
not protected and Knauf did not violate the FMLA by firing him.
Aubuchon v. Knauf Fiberglass, GmbH (7 th Cir. 2004) 359 F.3d 950.
Lessons from the
Real World
Even if an employee wasn’t entitled to take FMLA
leave to care for his common-law wife, he was entitled
to take leave to care for his premature infant.
Ingram Construction Company fired Mark Willard for taking time off to care
for his common-law wife and newborn child following the baby’s premature
birth. Willard sued Ingram for violating the FMLA.
The court of appeals held that, while Willard may or may not have met
the requirements of a common-law marriage, he was entitled to take FMLA
leave to care for his newborn. The legal relationship between Willard and the
mother of the child didn’t affect his right to take parental leave.
Willard v. Ingram Constr., Co., Inc. (6 th Cir. 1999) 194 F.3d 1315.