David Burnett v. Lfw Inc., Doing Business as the Habitat Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff did not have to tell employer he had prostrate cancer to give notice that his condition was serious
• holding that calling in sick while providing no additional information is insufficient for the FMLA
• holding that an employee who provided constructive notice of FMLA leave and was subsequently terminated plausibly claimed retaliatory discharge
• holding that the plaintiff could show he was entitled to FMLA leave based on his incapacity due to prostate cancer even though he was not diagnosed until after he was fired
• holding that plaintiff’s declaration that he was “sick” and “wanted to go home” should be taken in the context of employer’s knowledge of plaintiff’s previous medical history when considering the adequacy of employee’s notice under the FMLA
• finding that Seventh Circuit in Burnett did not adopt a more stringent definition of “interfere with” than that provided by regulation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).